Oral
Answers to
Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Yemen

Martin Docherty: What humanitarian support her Department is providing to Yemen.

Alison Thewliss: What humanitarian support her Department is providing to Yemen.

Penny Mordaunt: Yemen is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 21 million people in need of aid. The crisis will lead to famine unless all sides allow immediate commercial and humanitarian access throughout the country. The UK is playing a leading role in the current humanitarian and diplomatic response.

Martin Docherty: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I also welcome them to their position and wish them all the very best.
At the Select Committee on Defence two weeks ago, General Sir Richard Barrons stated that
“intelligent, thoughtful officials like the National Security Adviser are looking at the £62 billion we spend on aid, diplomacy and defence and wondering if they can get a mix out of that.”
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the balance is being struck between the United Kingdom’s tax receipts for sales to Saudi Arabia for it to flatten Yemen and the money that we are spending on development aid to rebuild Yemen?

Penny Mordaunt: We have been very clear that although we understand the coalition’s security concerns, they are not incompatible with allowing food and other supplies into the country. A huge diplomatic effort is being made, led by the Prime Minister, and she is using her visit this week to press further still. There has been movement in getting some aid and commercial supplies through, but that will not be enough. We need to keep pressing, and that is what this Government will do.

Alison Thewliss: The Foreign Secretary met a range of international partners yesterday. Unfortunately, the communiqué from that meeting seemed to talk a lot more about weapons than about getting aid and commercial goods into Yemen. Will the Secretary of State tell me a bit more about what the UK Government are doing to get aid and commercial goods into the country? Aid  agencies know that the country needs not just aid but commercial goods. Each day, 130 children are dying in Yemen. We cannot wait any longer.

Penny Mordaunt: The communiqué did speak about what we are doing. In addition to the diplomatic efforts, a large part of my time since I have been in post has been spent looking at the other possible options in order logistically to get what is needed to the people who need it. There are immense problems, but we are looking at plan B—what else we can do. The key thing, and the only way to get the full supplies in, is to open up those two ports, and that is what we are pressing for.

Kevin Foster: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her place and am delighted to see her there. Given the vital need to get humanitarian aid into Yemen, will she confirm what work the UK Government are doing via the United Nations to secure this access, particularly given our role in the Security Council?

Penny Mordaunt: I have been in close contact with both the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, and the Secretary-General himself. We are all working together to impress upon the coalition the importance of getting in not just aid but, critically, commercial supplies. That has been the main thrust of our argument. Clearly, a political settlement is needed in the long term, and we are pushing for all partners to engage.

Andrew Percy: The situation for Yemen’s remaining Jews is harrowing, particularly for those outside the capital. What work is her Department doing to support the work of other Government Departments in helping to provide safe passage to other countries for these individuals?

Penny Mordaunt: We are extremely conscious of this matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East has been doing an enormous amount of work, looking at particular communities. There are enormous numbers of people—21 million—who are in an absolutely dire situation. As well as trying to get the immediate issues resolved, we must keep pressing for a political process and for all parties to engage with efforts of the UN’s Special Envoy.

Ann Clwyd: It does not look as though the Prime Minister is being any more successful on this issue than she is on so many others. It really is a disgrace that although the Secretary of State’s Department is working on the humanitarian aspects by providing food and other aid to Yemen, we continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia, which fuels the conflict. Where is the sense in that?

Penny Mordaunt: I understand the right hon. Lady’s concerns, but as I have said, while we do accept there are legitimate security concerns, that is entirely separate from, and should not be conflated with, preventing aid and commercial supplies from getting to a population. We are extremely concerned about the situation; we are extremely concerned that the coalition may be in breach of international humanitarian law, and I would refer her to the statement my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East gave on 7 November.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her new role. I heard what she just said, but on Sunday it emerged that the UK had been providing military assistance to Saudi Arabia to carry out military training as part of Operation Crossways. With the Foreign Secretary hosting Foreign Ministers from the region yesterday for talks, does the Secretary of State think that the UK’s military support and arms sales to Saudi Arabia are helping or hindering a political solution to the simply appalling and worsening humanitarian situation in Yemen?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady and other Members who have welcomed me to my post.
Although the UK military has provided training on targeting, to try to reduce civilian casualties, that has been entirely separate from the Saudi coalition’s actual campaign. We are trying to utilise the military-to-military contacts that we do have, which are deep, as part of our diplomatic process to try and get the coalition to realise that it must let aid into the two ports. We are also providing £1.3 million to help the UN’s verification and inspection mechanisms. If we can supply any practical support to give the coalition confidence that weapons are not coming in with aid, we will do that.

Polio

Luke Hall: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of international efforts to eradicate polio.

Alistair Burt: Since 1988, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has been highly effective in leading international efforts that have reduced polio cases by more than 99%. Only 15 cases have been reported in 2017—in two countries, Afghanistan and Pakistan—and we hope the last case will come through at the end of this year or early next year.

Luke Hall: I thank the Minister for that answer. May I also take the opportunity to welcome the leadership the Government have shown in the battle to eradicate polio from the face of this earth? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly the sort of thing the great British public can get behind, support and welcome our aid being used for?

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Eradicating polio will be one of the great global public health success stories. United Kingdom taxpayer support since 1988 has helped prevent 1.5 million childhood deaths, and 16 million people are walking today who would otherwise be paralysed. People across the UK can be proud—not least those who support the Rotary movement, because the Rotary movement worldwide has played an important part, and I thank my colleagues in the Sandy Rotary club for their efforts in this regard.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Does the Minister agree that what has marked out the fight against polio is its international nature, and that we should be pressing this same approach to tackling other diseases at the Commonwealth summit next year?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The use of United Kingdom funds to support things such as the Global Fund, which take part in international activity, and to strengthen global health systems is important. We have to work in partnership with others. The Commonwealth summit will provide a good opportunity to emphasise more of what we can do together.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Department on the work that is being done to help eradicate polio. However, there is a risk that it can return if inoculations do not take place. Will he use the opportunity of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next year to press the case for further inoculations across the Commonwealth?

Alistair Burt: We are working with those who are putting together the Commonwealth summit to make sure there is an ambitious agenda devoted to all aspects of life in the Commonwealth, including global health. My hon. Friend is right on immunisation: through the GPEI, the UK will immunise 45 million children against polio and save more than 65,000 children from paralysis each year, so there will be no let-up in immunisation and the fight to make sure polio is eradicated.

Jamie Stone: Will the Minister show the same level of commitment he has shown on the international level to the prevention and eradication of animal and livestock diseases—something that poses a grave threat to very rural constituencies such as mine?

John Bercow: Order. That is scarcely even tangentially related to the matter on the paper. What the hon. Gentleman is implicitly saying is, “I don’t really like this question, and therefore I’d like to propose the insertion of another in its stead.” It is ingenious to the point of being cheeky. A one-sentence reply of no more than 20 words from the Minister.

Alistair Burt: I will draw the attention of one of my hon. Friends in the Government to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

John Bercow: Splendid.

Value for Money

Lucy Allan: What steps she is taking to promote value for money in aid spending.

Alex Burghart: What steps she is taking to promote value for money in aid spending.

Rory Stewart: We work continuously to improve the way we design, implement and monitor programmes. Spending money well, wisely and efficiently makes sense both because it is British taxpayers’ money and because it allows us to deliver better education, better healthcare and better nutrition for some of the world’s poorest people.

Lucy Allan: Greater transparency in how and where aid money is spent is vital to ensure public confidence. Will my hon. Friend champion the transparency agenda and ensure that aid to the Palestinian Authority does not fund radicalisation?

Rory Stewart: My hon. Friend’s question on the Palestinian Authority is for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, but the basic principle is clear. This is not just about transparency. Transparency is not an end in itself, but a means to achieving accountability. It is not just about getting the data out there; it is about making sure that people in the developing world can access the data, understand the data and use the data. We can improve only if we are challenged.

Alex Burghart: I welcome the Minister’s comments on accountability. My constituents raise value for money in aid spending with me on a regular basis. Does he agree that accountability to people in poor countries is essential in getting value for money?

Rory Stewart: Absolutely, and the challenge of accountability in the developing world is great. Here in Britain, where there is a free media and a lot of civil society, it is very easy, as we all know, for people to challenge a rail project or what is happening in a hospital. In the developing world, we need to invest in ensuring that we have the right kind of beneficiary feedback, because it is the people on the ground who know more, and we will improve only if we listen.

Stephen Twigg: Last week, the Select Committee on International Development published our first report of the Parliament on global education. I urge the Government to respond soon to our recommendation that we should fully fund replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education and to make that announcement as early as possible.

Rory Stewart: We will be announcing the refresh of our education policy early next year. The key thing, on which we agree absolutely with the Select Committee, is to drive up the quality of education. Attendance is right up, but far too many children are coming out entirely illiterate.

David Hanson: Is the Minister convinced that expenditure on private schools in Africa is the best use of public money and provides the best outcomes, given the report published recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)?

Rory Stewart: Ninety five per cent. of all our education spending goes to public education. However, there is a place, particularly in some of the poorest and most remote parts of the world, for recognising that the private sector is filling with low-cost education a hole that the public sector sometimes cannot fill.

James Duddridge: What assessment has the Department made of the value for money of its spending in Bangladesh to help the Rohingya people, particularly given the Secretary of State’s recent visit to the area?

Rory Stewart: Our assessment is that our humanitarian assistance in Bangladesh, which at the moment amounts to more than £40 million, is carefully monitored and well spent. It is focused, above all, on providing shelter and protection, particularly protection against sexual violence in conflict.

Chris Law: May I first welcome the Secretary of State to her new post? May I also welcome the Moderator of the Church of Scotland to the Gallery?
There is no greater value for money in aid spending than protecting the future of our natural world for generations to come. Following the UN COP23 talks earlier this month, which I attended, it is undeniable that we are reaching the tipping point of no return on climate change, and all nations agreed that we must go “further, faster, together”. Given that DFID is a major shareholder in the World Bank, which still spends much more on oil, gas and coal than on clean energy, will the Secretary of State give me her personal commitment that she will use all her powers of persuasion with the World Bank to ensure that it invests more in clean, safe renewables than in fossil fuels?

Rory Stewart: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this in the past, and I pay tribute to the work that he does on the environment. We are pressing the World Bank to do that, and that is one of the functions of the new financing facilities that we have established, but there is still a place for non-renewable energy generation, particularly to meet the desperate needs in Africa.

Jeremy Lefroy: One of the best ways to spend money is on malaria, as I have seen as chair of the all-party group on malaria. The “World Malaria Report” is released today, and it shows a worrying stalling in progress on malaria. Could my hon. Friend commit the UK Government to ensuring that as much as possible is done to make further progress?

Rory Stewart: That is a very important issue, in which the UK Government are proud to have invested heavily, along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the US Government, who have done a lot on this. There is, I believe, an event in Speaker’s House immediately after this to commemorate some of the progress that is being made on malaria, but my hon. Friend is absolutely correct that this is an issue on which we need to do much more, and the fact is that progress is stalling.

Kate Osamor: I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role, and I look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State’s predecessor resigned because she was caught trying to give aid money to the Israeli defence forces. Securitisation and militarisation of the aid budget, which is supposed to go to the world’s poorest, seem to be the new normal under this Government. What are the Secretary of State’s plans on spending aid money on military and the police, and will the spending go up or down?

Rory Stewart: It is absolutely central to remember that we must address the root causes of poverty, and a lot of those lie in fragile and conflict-affected states. If we try to separate off the work we do on education,  health and humanitarian assistance from the political and military drivers of conflict, we will never resolve these problems. But we absolutely take on board the fact that our prime responsibility is towards the poorest in the world. Our programmes on conflict are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. I would like to ask the hon. Lady: who made the 0.7% target? It is absolutely central that we do these things together.

Kate Osamor: I thank the Minister for his response, but new figures show that in 2016 aid spending on the £1 billion conflict stability and security fund increased by £27 million. That was spent mainly through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on propping up the military and police in places such as Bahrain, Ethiopia and Syria. With no scrutiny from DFID or Parliament’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, how can we measure the impact? Does the Minister believe that this is value for money?

Rory Stewart: I absolutely believe it is value for money. There are currently 23 million people at risk of starvation in north-east Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. The reason why they are at risk of starvation is conflict. These are not natural disasters; they are driven by conflict. Unless we find political solutions to these conflicts, we will have 23 million people continuing to die throughout the world. We will not apologise for our approach, because it is a central part of our development policy.

Modern Slavery

Paul Masterton: What steps her Department is taking to tackle modern slavery in developing countries.

Penny Mordaunt: The Department is playing a leading role in the cross-government effort to tackle the scourge of modern slavery, and expanding our work in developing countries to tackle this barbaric crime. Our “work in freedom” programme has already reached over 380,000 women and girls in south Asia and the middle east.

Paul Masterton: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and I welcome her to her position. Saturday was International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Given that around 75% of victims of modern slavery are women, will she join me in paying tribute to campaigners and organisations across the country, including the Women’s Aid refuge in Barrhead in my constituency, for what they do to tackle this crime?

Penny Mordaunt: I would be very happy to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents for the work that they are doing. Modern slavery is something that many people across the country are concerned about. We should be proud that our country and our Prime Minister are leading the way, most recently in convening leaders at the UN to launch the call for action to end modern slavery, which now has 40 signatories.

Topical Questions

Stephen Gethins: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Penny Mordaunt: I have just returned from Bangladesh, where I saw for myself the Rohingya camp and heard from refugees of the horrific atrocities that they have endured. I applaud the generosity of the Bangladeshi Government and the people of Bangladesh, as well as British taxpayers and all who have donated to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal. Although every refugee has expressed the desire to return home, I have made it clear to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina that any returns must be voluntary, safe and sustainable. Those conditions are far from being met.

Stephen Gethins: As in Bangladesh and Burma, the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Yemen is a man-made one. The Secretary of State talked about having influence on the perpetrators of that conflict. With the tax take from arms sales now outstripping the level of aid, does she not think the time has come to stop arms sales to the combatants in that conflict?

Penny Mordaunt: I will say it for the third time: there are genuine security concerns on the part of the Saudi-led coalition, but that is entirely separate from the issue of allowing aid and commercial supplies into ports. We think that they can address their security concerns, and we are prepared to assist them in some measure to do that, but there is no excuse, legitimate though their concerns are, for stopping food and supplies getting to the individuals who need them.

Stephen Crabb: British non-governmental organisations are now the largest recipients of grant funding through the EU’s ECHO humanitarian programme, precisely because they are very good at what they do. Will the Secretary of State look at ways of continuing a relationship with ECHO once we leave the EU, so that our NGOs can have stable funding to continue to do their important work in fragile states?

Penny Mordaunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: our NGOs are second to none. If we are going to continue to make our funds deliver, provide value for money and have the impact required, British NGOs still need to be delivering that aid. All this will be part of the negotiations, but I concur exactly with my right hon. Friend’s sentiments.

Paul Sweeney: What recent discussions has the Department had with United Nations Women on the UK Government’s contribution to its core funding?

Alistair Burt: Support to protect women and girls, whether in relation to education, sanitation or refugees, has been a significant part of the work DFID is doing. We are constantly in contact with UN agencies about what more can be done both for women in conflict and for women in developing countries, and that is a major part of DFID’s programme.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Government ensure that their aid focuses on projects to improve sanitation and infection control to reduce the need to use antibiotics, as part of our global commitment to tackle antimicrobial resistance?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Reducing the transmission of infection is an effective way of decreasing the need for antibiotics. Our approach is to strengthen national health systems to address infection prevention and control, and this includes hygiene and sanitation in health facilities.

Martin Whitfield: The House will be aware that this Friday marks World AIDS Day. Will the Minister tell us what the Department is going to do to build on this country’s expertise and investment to date to ensure that critical AIDS vaccines are delivered to Africa?

Alistair Burt: I am pleased to join the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the whole House, in commemorating World AIDS Day. We have been a long-term supporter of the international AIDS vaccine initiative, and we are the largest international funder of HIV prevention, care and treatment. From the £1.1 billion going into the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, 1.3 million retroviral drugs will be provided through the UK this year. There will be no let-up in the fight, and we are united on that. [Official Report, 4 December 2017, Vol. 632, c. 3-4MC.]

Amanda Milling: Following the recent resignation of Robert Mugabe, will my hon. Friend outline what reviews the Department will be taking of the provision of UK aid to help Zimbabwe to secure a positive and prosperous future?

Rory Stewart: I have recently returned from a visit to Zimbabwe. These are early days, and we need to watch very carefully what kinds of economic and political reforms are introduced by Mr Mnangagwa’s Government. However, if such reforms are forthcoming, there is a great deal that the British Government can do: first, in supporting governance reform; secondly, in supporting the business climate; and thirdly, in getting International Monetary Fund support for the Government of Zimbabwe.

Alison Thewliss: On Monday evening, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow presented its excellent report on “Global Citizenship in the Scottish Health Service”.  What discussions have taken place between DFID and health service officials across  the UK about harnessing the huge mutual benefits  of supporting health staff to volunteer overseas?

John Bercow: Order. I hope the Secretary of State heard that question amidst the clubbable hubbub. It is very important that the question be heard, otherwise the hon. Lady will have to blurt it out again.

Penny Mordaunt: If this answer is not satisfactory because I did not hear the hon. Lady’s question, please will she let me know? We are looking to refresh a number of schemes, including the International Citizen Service, and at what healthcare professionals and other professions can offer with regard to aid while enhancing their own personal professional development.

Robert Courts: I recently hosted a meeting with the China-Britain Council to explore opportunities for developing markets. What discussions are taking place between the Department for International Trade and DFID to ensure that trade joins aid as a way to help the developing world?

Penny Mordaunt: We have close discussions with our colleagues at the Department for International Trade. The trade and aid programme has enabled more than 40 countries to put development at the heart of their own plans.

Ellie Reeves: I recently visited young Send My Friend to School campaigners at Sydenham School in my constituency. They spoke with great passion about the need for global education and why greater financing for education matters to them. What action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that this Government listen to those young people and show leadership by increasing funding for education through the Global Partnership for Education?

Alistair Burt: We were and are the largest founder contributor to the Global Partnership for Education. With 387 million children expected to leave primary school unable to read, there is no doubt that the continuing efforts of the United Kingdom, along with others in the partnership, are important. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we will publish a refreshed education strategy early in the new year. The hon. Lady can be sure that strengthening education systems around the world, and supporting teachers and children who may be marginalised through missing out on education, will be key parts of that.

Henry Smith: I recently visited some schools in Africa where, in classrooms of more than 100 pupils, those with special educational needs, right at the back, had very little chance of accessing education. How will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I congratulate her on her new position—prioritise disability support in education in developing countries?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject, which is very close to my heart. He will not have long to wait—perhaps it will be a matter of hours—for my first announcement on how the DFID budget will support disability.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Melanie Onn: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 29 November.

Damian Green: I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is abroad in the middle east furthering our interests in a region that is fundamental to our national security and prosperity.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our warmest congratulations to His Royal Highness Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and in wishing them every happiness in the future.
Today also marks the 100th anniversary of the creation of the RAF. The whole House will want to express our thanks for a century of service to this country.

Melanie Onn: I add my congratulations to those of the First Secretary of State to Prince Harry on his engagement.
Thanks to the outstanding efforts of the Labour-run North East Lincolnshire Council, the Government have included the Greater Grimsby project in their industrial strategy document, but we need more than a byline in a glossy magazine to make its potential a reality. When can we expect the Government to put their money where their mouth is, so that we can get going?

Damian Green: I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady welcomes the industrial strategy, as she should do. It will be good for Grimsby and many other communities around this country, particularly those that may feel that they have been left behind in the past. I am happy to assure her that the industrial strategy will come with money attached, as she will have heard in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget statement.

Simon Clarke: Making a success of the South Tees mayoral development corporation is vital for Teesside, and I was delighted to welcome the Prime Minister to my constituency this summer. Will the First Secretary join me in recognising the scale of the opportunity represented by the MDC, agree that it offers a chance to redefine Teesside to the world and commit that the new money awarded in the Budget is only the start of the process of delivering on its huge potential for change?

Damian Green: I can see that my hon. Friend is getting the hang of questions already. I am happy to assure him that we are committed to working with him, and indeed with the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, who is doing so much to help develop the area. We want to support him and the South Tees Development Corporation on the work they are doing on the long-term regeneration of the south Tees area. As he said, the Chancellor announced £123 million of new funding in the Budget, because we recognise the significant economic opportunities in the area.

Emily Thornberry: Let me join the First Secretary of State in congratulating the RAF on its anniversary, and in congratulating Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their engagement—that is one Anglo-American couple that we in the Opposition will be delighted to see holding hands. I am sure that Prince Harry, as the patron of Rugby League, will be joining all of us in supporting the England team in the world cup final on Saturday—I, for one, will of course be waving my St George’s flag.
On a much sadder note, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to all those killed and injured in Friday’s horrific attack on the mosque in north Sinai. It is a bitter reminder that the vast majority of the victims of jihadi terror are Muslims.
Before I get on with my questions, can I ask the First Secretary of State about a simple point of principle? Is he happy to be held to the same standards in government that he required of others while in opposition?

Damian Green: Yes, I am. I think that all Ministers should respect and obey the ministerial code, and I absolutely think that is a very important part of confidence in public life. I also echo the right hon. Lady’s thoughts about the terrible events in Sinai. She might find it difficult to wave the St George’s flag, but I will be doing so for the English rugby league team. [Interruption.] As a Welsh rugby fan, I might find it even more difficult than she does.

Emily Thornberry: The First Secretary of State looked rather perturbed at my line of questioning, but he does not need to worry; I really am not going there. I was merely wondering whether he remembered the question he asked at Prime Minister’s questions almost 17 years ago, when John Prescott stood in for Tony Blair, and whether he could answer the same question today. The question was this:
“what percentage of the new nurses recruited in the past 12 months are now working full time?”—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 630.]

Damian Green: I cannot remember asking that question, but I would love to know what the then Deputy Prime Minister answered. I am happy to assure the right hon. Lady that we have more nurses, more midwives and more doctors working in the health service now. The health service is performing more operations now, and certainly more than it was 17 years ago. In particular, in the Budget last week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce more than £6 billion extra on health spending, which will make the health service even stronger in future than it is now.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that response, but since he failed to answer my original question, I will do it for him. According to the Government’s latest figures, more than 40% of newly recruited nurses are leaving full-time employment within their first year. It is not just new recruits who are quitting; the overall number of NHS nurses and health visitors is down by 1,500 this year. The numbers are now lower than when this Government came to office. Why does he think that so many nurses are leaving?

Damian Green: There are, as I say, more operations being done, and more nurses, more doctors, more midwives. The health service is expanding. We have got 14,900 more doctors, 1,500 more medical school places each year and 10,000 more nurses on our wards, and we have announced an increase of more than 5,000 extra nurse training places every year. In addition, the Chancellor said in his Budget that we would commit to making sure that the nurses’ pay increase, the action for change—[Interruption.] The “Agenda for Change” staffing covered would not come out of other health spending. So nurses can be reassured that the Government will continue to support them both on pay and in terms of numbers. That is why our health service in England is getting better. If the right hon. Lady wants to look at a health service where things are getting worse, she can look to the Labour Government in Wales, and she does not  need to take it from me; she can take it from the public, because public satisfaction with the NHS in Wales is lower than in England. That is the effect of a Labour Government on health services.

Emily Thornberry: I hate to break it to the First Secretary, but there are more nurses in the NHS than just those working in emergency and acute wards, including district nurses, the number of whom has halved under the Tories. And guess who picks up the slack if those nurses are not there? It is nurses in emergency and acute care. I asked why so many nurses were leaving the vocation they loved. According to the Royal College of Nursing, the top four reasons are excess workload, staff shortages, low pay, and worries about patient care. According to the Government’s own figures, the number of nurses quitting because of worries about their finances or health has doubled since the Tories first froze their pay. So let us get on to the question—the question he asked John Prescott 17 years ago. The First Secretary said then that nurses at his local hospital were warning that
“staff shortages are putting patients’ lives at risk”—[Official Report, 13 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 630.]
What are those same nurses telling him today?

Damian Green: Since 17 years ago—and it is interesting that 17 years ago many years of Labour Government still lay ahead, with all the pressures the right hon. Lady has just exposed—the number of nurses in post has risen significantly. I did not quite understand her point about wards—she seemed to go on and off the wards—but we know that we have 10,000 more nurses on our wards, which is where people want to see them. Also, if she is interested in nurses’ pay, I hope that she will find it in herself to welcome the tax cut announced in the Budget—the increase in the personal allowance—which will help nurses, just as it will help workers across the public and private sectors. This is good news for nurses. The Budget was good not just for the health service but specifically for the nursing profession. As I say, I hope that she can bring herself to welcome that.

Emily Thornberry: I notice that the First Secretary did not want to talk about patient care at his local hospital. Could the reason be that his local accident and emergency department, according to the board’s most recent minutes, has
“Severe staff shortages in medical and nursing staff”,
meaning that patient safety is being put at risk, and the only option to tackle those shortages is to cancel outpatient clinics? And it gets worse: there is to be a public meeting tomorrow to consider closing his local A&E for good—in other words, all the things he has been denying. What are you doing to our NHS? It is happening on your own doorstep. Is it not about time he got a grip?

John Bercow: Order. I am entirely innocent in this matter.

Damian Green: The right hon. Lady’s grasp of the facts is pretty shaky. The meeting tomorrow in my constituency is about the strategic transformation plan. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order.

Damian Green: I am happy to assure the right hon. Lady that I am entirely in favour of option 1 of that strategic transformation plan, which suggests not just leaving A&E services in the hospital in my constituency, but actually expanding specialist services there. I strongly suggest that she does not try to think she knows more about what is going on my constituency than I do.

Emily Thornberry: I suspect that neither the nation nor the First Secretary’s own constituents will have taken any reassurances from that answer. We have an NHS in the grip of a chronic funding and staffing crisis: GPs are quitting in record numbers; junior doctors are running A&E departments without supervision; our nurses are at breaking point—and all this is before the winter crisis that is coming. So let me finally ask him: what does it say about the Government’s priorities that last week’s Budget could only find £350 million to help the cash-strapped, stretched-to-the-limit NHS cope with the winter fuel crisis? [Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “Keep going.”] Only £350 million to cope with the winter crisis, but it was able to find 11 times that amount to spend on a no-deal Brexit. Is that not the very definition of a Government who are fiddling away while the rest of the country burns?

Damian Green: The right hon. Lady is determined to talk the NHS down. It is a Conservative Government who are increasing NHS funding so that it remains the best health service in the world, as the independent Commonwealth Fund has described it for the second year in a row. It is this party that promised and delivered more money for the NHS in 2010 and 2015, and in last week’s Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor promised it an extra £6.3 billion. That means more patients being treated, it means more operations being carried out by more doctors, and it means more nurses.
The right hon. Lady ended her remarks by saying that the Government were wasting £3 billion on preparing for Brexit. We now know that Labour Members do not think it is worth preparing for Brexit, but they do think it is worth preparing for a run on the pound. That is all we need to know about the Labour party.

Matt Warman: This week one of Labour’s last two remaining councillors in Boston crossed the floor to join the Conservative party. He said that he did not want to see the country go back to 1973. Will the First Secretary join me in welcoming this new member to the Conservative party, and does he agree that an open, optimistic Britain deserves better than reheated Marxism and Labour’s bankrupt economy?

Damian Green: I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend, and, indeed, with the wisdom of the Labour councillor who has joined the Conservative party. My hon. Friend is quite right. What we hear from Labour Members shows that a Labour Government would lose control of public finances and hike taxes to their highest ever peacetime level. I have discovered a new quotation—the shadow Chancellor called business “the enemy”. That is what the modern Labour party is about.
Let me also point out that the local councillor may just have moved in anticipation. I understand that moderate councillors are being deselected by the hard left of the Labour party.

Ian Blackford: May I join the First Secretary in congratulating Prince Harry and Meghan on their engagement, and wish them a long life and happiness together? May I also welcome the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Right Reverend Derek Browning, who is with us in the Gallery today?
Will the First Secretary of State now tell the House how much money the UK Government have received from Saudi Arabia as a result of arms sales since the war in Yemen began?

Damian Green: I am afraid that I do not have the figure to hand. However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that our defence industry is an extremely important creator of jobs and prosperity, in Scotland as well as in other parts of the country. Obviously I am aware of the current terrible situation in Yemen, but he should also recognise that this country has one of the most rigorous and robust defence sales regimes in the world, as was recognised in a court case last July—and we are absolutely determined to maintain the most rigorous and robust system because that is the right thing to do, both for our prosperity and to ensure that we keep proper control of arms sales.

Ian Blackford: That was a long time to be unable to answer the question. I can tell the First Secretary that the UK Government have received £4.6 billion from selling arms to Saudi Arabia since the war in Yemen began—a war that has created a devastating humanitarian crisis. Yemen is now on the brink of famine, and UNICEF has said that 150,000 children will die by the end of the year. Does the First Secretary not agree that the best thing the Prime Minister can do in her meetings today is follow the example of the Netherlands and suspend licences for arms sales to Saudi Arabia to stop killing children?

Damian Green: I should correct something the right hon. Gentleman said: that the Government receive the money. It will be the companies that receive the money, and therefore their workers. He can take that position if he wants, and it was the Labour party’s position as well, but that would certainly entail significant job losses.
It is very important not only that we have the robust regime I talked about, but that we continue the humanitarian efforts that we make to try to alleviate the terrible conditions in Yemen. We are the fourth largest humanitarian donor to Yemen, and the second largest to the UN appeal. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the involvement of the Saudis in this conflict came at the request of the legitimate Government of Yemen and has UN Security Council backing. That is why we support it. This is a conflict supported by the UN Security Council, and I would hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have some respect for the Security Council.

Rebecca Pow: This Government’s ambition to build more homes is welcome, especially among those struggling to get on the housing ladder, and Taunton Deane is playing its part. With its garden town status, we must have homes that are good places to live—energy-efficient, sustainable drainage, green spaces, and maybe even, Mr Speaker, where there are showers, no shower gels with microbeads. However, we must also have the right roads in these developments. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the  housing infrastructure fund is key to unlocking funds for vital roads such as the spine road through Staplegrove in Taunton?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know what a stout champion she is of the people of Taunton Deane. She is right about the housing infrastructure fund as well. We need more homes, but we also need the infrastructure to back them up, and that is why the Chancellor doubled the housing infrastructure fund in the Budget.

Rosie Duffield: As the First Secretary of State will know, being my near neighbour in Kent, as a result of underfunding the Conservative county council has run out of cash and is cutting the funding of buses in Kent by 70%. Four hospital buses, 14 school buses and over 100 other routes are to be cut. Thousands of pensioners, especially in rural areas, are to be trapped at home. Does the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ashford, really support such cuts?

Damian Green: I do not recognise the characterisation of Kent County Council’s position that my constituency neighbour has expressed. All local authorities, as all parts of the public sector, have to live within their means, because we have to continue paying down the deficit run up by the previous Labour Government. Kent County Council is an extremely good county council that does many good things in transport and other fields for the people of Kent, and will continue to do so.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for decades now, the richer member states in the European Union have made large contributions to the EU budget because the macroeconomic benefits of belonging to the large free trade area of the single market make it a bargain to pay that share of the costs? Should we not therefore welcome the rumours in today’s press of a possible imminent settlement of the method of calculating future contributions, which may now enable us to get on with the serious negotiations about how we retain the maximum future access to all those benefits of that free trade?

Damian Green: My right hon. and learned Friend has been around long enough to know not necessarily to believe everything he reads in the newspapers, and it would clearly be wrong for me to go into figures now, but he is absolutely right that what we are about, and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is about, is making sure we get the best possible deal at this stage of the process, so we can move on to the trade talks. Britain, as a country that meets its international obligations, of course will, as it exits the EU, meet the obligations and have all the rights that we have in that process, so that we can maintain a deep and special partnership with the other 27 members of the EU, as we move forward in friendship and co-operation after we have left the EU.

John Mann: Being believed, reliving trauma, fear of publicity, and a culture of denial are some of the reasons why very many women are reluctant to report rape, assault and sexual harassment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Government and Parliament need to lead by example? Will he, on behalf of the Government, apologise to the victims that Parliament and the Government have been letting down?

Damian Green: I absolutely agree that this place as an institution and all the political parties need to improve complaints procedures and other aspects of the culture of politics to ensure that young men and young women who are interested in politics do not in any way feel deterred from playing an active role in it. There is a place for everyone in this House, on all sides and in all parties, and among the House authorities, to ensure that this is the best possible working environment for young people to come into.

Nadine Dorries: Many mothers in this Chamber know how hard childbirth can be, but we would never use that knowledge in a veiled threat against a journalist, in the way that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) did when being questioned by a Channel 4 journalist recently. As I assume that the First Secretary is not pregnant, will he please complete the work that that journalist tried to do, by asking the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn to use her influence with her aunt, who is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, whose regime is responsible for the kidnapping of Ahmad Bin Quasem, to ask for his release?

Damian Green: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Before the First Secretary replies, I am sure that the—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) notified the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) of an intention to refer to her in this question—

Nadine Dorries: indicated dissent.

John Bercow: She did not? Well, that was disorderly—[Interruption.] Order. Nevertheless, the question has been asked and it would be perfectly proper for the First Secretary briefly to reply.

Damian Green: Mr Speaker, you and the House will be aware that I can speak only on behalf of the Government. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) that Bangladesh remains an important human rights priority area for the Foreign Office and that we continue to raise allegations of enforced disappearances at all levels of the Government of Bangladesh. I think I should stop there.

Steve McCabe: At the present rate of progress, it will take the three officials at the First Secretary’s old Department more than 70 years to investigate the claims of around 4,500 WASPI women who are being deprived of their state pension. I know that this Government are slow, but is this not adding insult to injury?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government committed a sum of more than £1 billion to ensure that no one’s pension would be delayed more than 18 months from the original period. I am sure that he also, as a reasonable man, recognises that, with increasing longevity, it is inevitable that the pension age will rise. That is what this Government are doing, and by next year pension inequality will have been removed. We will hit 65 for both sexes next  year, and that means that we will then have an equal pension system.

James Gray: The Royal Air Force is unique among the three services in having been established by an Act of Parliament, which received Royal Assent 100 years ago today. Will my right hon. Friend find time in his busy diary to join me and Members of both Houses and staff from throughout the Palace in celebrating the magnificent service that the RAF has given to this nation over that 100 years, at  a unique parade in the atrium of Portcullis House at 7.30 this evening by the Queen’s Colour Squadron?

Damian Green: I have already mentioned the centenary today, and my hon. Friend is right to bring it up again. We cannot pay high enough tribute to the men and women of the RAF for a century of service that will go on for a long time into the future as well. I am glad that he has managed to get an advert in for the parade this evening in Portcullis House.

Patrick Grady: The United Kingdom has lost its seat on the International Court of Justice, EU agencies are pulling out of London, and there will be no more European capitals of culture in the UK. Is the sun setting on empire 2.0 before it has even begun?

Damian Green: It is not really surprising that EU institutions are not going to be in a state that is not a member of the EU. That cannot come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. As for the capitals of culture, I rather agree with him. After British cities, including some in Scotland, were invited to be part of the process, it is extremely disappointing that the Commission has decided that they cannot apply. We are in urgent talks with the Commission about that, and we are ensuring that all the cities that applied can continue with their cultural development, which has been shown to be an extremely good basis for the regeneration of cities and towns across the United Kingdom.

Amanda Milling: This Saturday, I will be announcing the winners of my annual local shop competition as part of Small Business Saturday. Will my right hon. Friend wish all Cannock Chase retailers the best of luck and will he congratulate the winners?

Damian Green: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating her retailers. Like many Members, I will be celebrating Small Business Saturday this weekend. It has become an extremely important part of the calendar. Supporting small business is absolutely at the heart of this Government’s economic strategy, and we should take every opportunity to celebrate the hugely important work that small businesses do in innovation, in entrepreneurship and in serving the people.

Sarah Jones: Today, we see shocking new figures that child knife deaths are nearing a 40-year high. The Prime Minister promised action five months ago, but she has failed to deliver. There was nothing in the Budget for policing and nothing meaningful to tackle the causes as well as the crime. It is clear that we need intervention now and not just from the Home Office. Funding youth workers in major trauma centres is proven to get young people out of the cycle of violence, and it would cost £6 million a  year to fund. Will the First Secretary establish a cross-Government programme of action to make good on the Prime Minister’s promise?

Damian Green: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that this Government’s stance on knife crime is actually tougher than ever. We have made the punishment for repeat offenders stronger, and we have banned cautions for the most serious offences. There is now a very clear message: if you carry knives in public, you are more likely than ever to go to prison. The latest figures show that 42% of adult offenders were given an immediate custodial sentence—the highest rate in nearly a decade—so I hope that she can be reassured that this Government are actually being tougher on knife crime than any previous Government.

Nadhim Zahawi: Does the First Secretary agree that we do not need to break into the computer or iPad of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to work out that the half a trillion pounds that he wants to borrow will attract £7.5 billion of interest payments every year?

John Bercow: Order. The one difficulty with that otherwise ingenious question is that it bears no relation to Government policy, for which the First Secretary is responsible, and relates instead to the policies of the shadow Chancellor, for which he is not.

Wayne David: Sharon Jones is a constituent who had a malignant brain tumour removed some 20 years ago, leaving her with excruciating headaches and severe pain in her neck and shoulders. Sharon has been in receipt of employment and support allowance, and the Department for Work and Pensions accepts that Sharon is not fit for work. However, she has now been placed in the work-related activity group and her benefit has been reduced. Will the First Secretary justify that to Sharon?

Damian Green: Obviously, I cannot be aware of the individual issues in that case, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be happy to consider that case to see whether something needs to be done for Sharon.

John Stevenson: I very much welcome the announcement of the borderlands growth deal, which is positive news for the border area. Can the First Secretary assure me that this initiative will receive sufficient resource to ensure its success?

Damian Green: I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the borderlands growth initiative. I have seen the many benefits of city deals and growth deals around all parts of the United Kingdom since I became First Secretary. The borderlands growth initiative is particularly important because it will show the mutual prosperity of his part of the north of England and the southern part of Scotland. All I can say is that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is the MP for a constituency in the southern part of Scotland, I know this deal will get particularly strict attention inside  the Cabinet.

Tommy Sheppard: Does the First Secretary agree with the Lord Speaker’s committee that the House of Lords should be reduced to 600 and that the term should be limited to 15 years? Does he not feel the slightest sense of embarrassment that the crisis of credibility in the undemocratic upper Chamber has become so acute that its Members are themselves begging for reform while the elected Government refuse to act?

Damian Green: When the hon. Gentleman says that all Members of the House of Lords are begging for reform, he may not necessarily be representing the entire range of views in another place, but I am happy to assure him that the Government are looking very carefully at the proposal of the Burns committee. We will, of course, respond in due course.

Damian Collins: Can my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour say what action the Government propose to take against Russian-backed agencies that are spreading fake news and disinformation? We know they have been doing it in our political campaigns, but there are also worrying reports that disinformation may be being spread on important issues such as accessing vaccines and the flu jab.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right to raise cyber-security, which is an extremely important issue, and fake news and the dissemination of potentially dangerous information is one part of that. The National Cyber Security Centre is looking very hard at the issue, and it is taking a number of measures to combat it, some of which obviously have to remain private. I absolutely assure him that the issue is very high on the agenda of the National Cyber Security Centre, which is just over a year old and which is doing very good work in ensuring that the whole area of cyber-security is much better than it used to be.

Wes Streeting: An 11-year-old primary school pupil approached me to tell me that he, his mother and his two brothers live in a single room in a bedsit in Ilford and to ask whether I could find him a council flat like the one in which I grew up. What is heartbreaking is that I know, and the First Secretary will know, it is very unlikely he will ever have one. Given that the measures announced in last week’s so-called housing Budget will not solve the scale of the problem that sees more than 100,000 children living in temporary accommodation, what will the First Secretary do to make sure that that boy, his family and every other child living in a bedsit or in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation gets the decent home they need and that they can call their own?

Damian Green: I absolutely agree that this is a serious problem, and it is one of the reasons why housing was at the centre of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget.

Emily Thornberry: What are you doing, then?

Damian Green: I see the right hon. Lady has recovered her voice. I will tell her what we are doing. Last year we delivered more homes than were delivered in all but one  of the last 30 years—217,000, which takes us to 1.1 million since 2010. Over the next five years we will invest £44 billion in home building, boosting the funding for council, social and low-cost housing to over £9 billion. We are building more social housing than the Labour Government did in their 13 years in office. We will build even more in the future. This is a Government who are addressing the problems of the constituents of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting); previous Labour Governments signally failed to do so.

Alex Chalk: At the recent extremely successful Cheltenham literature festival, Hillary Clinton talked about the importance of ensuring that the Russians are not allowed to meddle in British or, indeed, American elections. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be building an offensive cyber capability so that our opponents know we have the will and the wherewithal to strike back?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is exactly right, as we would expect, given that he is the Member of Parliament who represents GCHQ; he is absolutely right about the offensive capacity we may well need in the cyber area, and I am happy to assure him and the House that we are indeed developing that.

Mhairi Black: Without mentioning the new state pension or apprenticeships, without stating the falsehood that the Scottish Government can somehow fix the problem, and given that the Prime Minister is a WASPI woman herself, how can the First Minister justify a rise of 413% in the number of women over the age of 60 in receipt of employment and support allowance because of this Government’s refusal to give them their pensions?

Damian Green: I said this in reply to a previous question on this subject, but I hope the hon. Lady would recognise the principle, which is right: that as we live longer we need to move up the pension age. She knows as well as I do that the Scottish Government do have the capacity to top up welfare payments. Scottish National party Members like to sit here and deny that, but in Holyrood they know they could do this. So, as ever with the SNP, they should stop simply moaning in this Chamber; they should go back to their own Government in Scotland and say that if they want to do something, they should do it. They should get on with the day job of running Scotland.

Wendy Morton: I very much welcome the Government’s modern industrial strategy, which was launched this week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is really going to be important, as this country moves forward and we seek a global Britain, in creating more and better-quality jobs?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is exactly right; the point about the industrial strategy, which is a hugely important moment, is to create not just a stronger economy but a fairer economy for decades to come. That is why it is looking forward to 2030; it is a long-term attempt to make sure that we have not just a global, outward looking economy—I completely agree on that—but a modern economy where we can capitalise on our huge research strengths and our huge intellectual  strengths to make sure that, unlike so often in the past, we benefit commercially from that for decades to come. That is the route to rising productivity and rising prosperity.

Marsha de Cordova: This Sunday, 3 December, is the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities. So far, the Government have refused to carry out a cumulative impact assessment of their social security policies on people living with a disability. Will the First Secretary now mark this day by doing the right thing for disabled people and carrying out a full cumulative impact assessment?

Damian Green: I am sure the hon. Lady, who has great expertise in this field, will know that this Government are spending £90 billion on disability benefits. More to the point, we are being more successful than ever before in giving disabled people a degree of independence. Hundreds of thousands more disabled people are in work than have ever been before. We have a plan to have an extra million in work over the next 10 years. That is an extremely important and practical way to improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of disabled people. That is what this Government are doing, and that is what we will continue to do.

Richard Bacon: Given that President Rouhani of Iran has said that his will not be the first country to breach the joint comprehensive plan of action, will the First Secretary assure us that British diplomats are working hard in Washington DC to persuade our American friends that it is in the interests of the west and of Iran to uphold the JCPOA as an essential prelude to solving other regional problems?

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right; we think that the JCPOA is a very important part of attempting to improve conditions, not just between Iran and its neighbours but across the wider middle east. We will continue to argue that case in all parts of the world.

Nigel Dodds: I, too, join in offering congratulations to Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their engagement. One issue that Prince Harry has rightly highlighted and campaigned on is mental health. The Invest in Life campaign in Northern Ireland is doing a fantastic job in highlighting the need for extra resources on that issue. We join in that campaign and have secured extra resources. But at a time when issues such as mental health, education and all the rest of it need to be prioritised in Northern Ireland by a locally devolved Government working on these issues and representing the people of Northern Ireland, does the First Secretary agree that it is a gross dereliction of responsibility for Sinn Féin to announce this week that it is not going to engage in further discussions on the restoration of devolution? If that is the case, we now need to move quickly to restore accountability and Ministers to Northern Ireland to get on with the people’s business of responsible government in Northern Ireland.

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working as hard as possible to restore democratic control and to restore the Northern Ireland Executive. We all want to see proper devolved government restored in Northern Ireland. That would be by far the best thing for the people of Northern Ireland, and the Government will continue to work tirelessly to that end.

Points of Order

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Exceptionally, I will take the point of order now. [Interruption.] Will Members who are leaving the Chamber be good enough to do so quickly and quietly? It is quite unaccountable if they do not wish to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), but there is no accounting for taste.

Stephen Doughty: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for exceptionally taking this point of order.
You and others in the House may not be aware of this, Mr Speaker, but it appears that the President of the United States has in recent moments been retweeting comments from a far-right organisation, Britain First. There are some highly inflammatory videos, including some posted by an individual who I believe has recently been arrested and charged in relation to certain serious offences. Have you had notice of any intended statement by the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary on this very serious matter?

John Bercow: I confess I have had no advance notice of this matter. I am not myself one who tends to follow what is said on Twitter, but the hon. Gentleman is almost invariably very well informed on these matters. The Home Secretary is in her place and if she wants to say anything, she is welcome to do so, but she is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to do so.

Amber Rudd: indicated dissent.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

John Bercow: The right hon. Lady is not hailing a taxi. Oh, very well—in deference to the seniority of the right hon. Lady in the House, if she has a point of order to raise, I will of course hear it.

Yvette Cooper: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the woman in question has indeed already been convicted of hate crime in this country. On that basis, given the significance and seriousness of the President of the United States giving her such a huge platform, do you think it would be appropriate for us to hear some word of condemnation from the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary?

John Bercow: Well, it is a point of order for the Chair, and I can say only to the right hon. Lady that, at the moment, as will be obvious to her and to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, I have received no advance notice of any intention to make a statement. It would be wrong to expect a Government Minister immediately to respond and, to be fair, the Home Secretary is under no obligation to do so. What I would say is that I now know the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth very well and, if anything, I know the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) even better, because we came into the House together 20 years ago. Knowing them as well as I do, I know that when they have got their teeth into something, they are disinclined to let go. By the way, that is a compliment. We will leave it there for now, but I rather imagine that this matter will probably be mentioned again.

EXITING THE EU: COSTS

Chris Leslie: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to update the House on the expected costs of exiting the European Union.

Elizabeth Truss: Our negotiating team is currently in Brussels discussing our exit from the European Union—in fact, our officials have been working on it for months. It would be completely wrong of me to cut across those discussions by commenting on speculation about the financial settlement, and it would not be in our national interest.
The Prime Minister made it clear in her Florence speech that EU member states would not need to pay more, or to receive less money, over the remainder of the current budget period as a result of our decision to leave. She also made it clear that, in the spirit of our future partnership, the UK will honour its commitments made during its period of membership. As we have said before, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Any settlement that we make is contingent on us securing a suitable outcome, as outlined by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech. We will meet our commitments and also get a good deal for the UK taxpayer.
We want to see progress towards our preferred option, which is an implementation period followed by an ambitious future economic partnership. In the Budget, we have set aside £3 billion, in addition to the £700 million that we have already allocated, to make sure that our country is fully prepared for all eventualities. What we have seen today is simply media speculation. We will update the House when there is more detail to give.

Chris Leslie: The British people were promised a dividend from Brexit. They were told that leaving the EU would save us a fortune. Those who campaigned for Brexit daubed their hubris across the side of a giant red bus, promising a windfall of £350 million every week for the NHS. That was not just a whopping lie, but the direct opposite of the truth.
Will the Chief Secretary confirm that if the divorce bill comes in at somewhere between £40 billion and £67 billion, as is speculated, that could be a payment of £1,000 from every man, woman and child in this country? Is this speculated divorce bill not just the tip of the iceberg? If we are being honest about the true costs of Brexit, should we not also add in the lost revenues to the Exchequer set out in the Red Book—something in the order of £20 billion by 2021—the £3.7 billion of Brexit preparations for all the duplicated agencies, new border arrangements, lorry parks in Dover and so forth, and of course the higher cost of living for all of our constituents as prices keep on rising?
How do the Chief Secretary’s constituents react to the idea that they will be lumbered with all these extra costs? Do they not ask her, “What exactly are we getting for this? What wondrous new advantages will we gain by shelling out these astronomical sums?” Will she not be straight with the House that we are paying for the privilege of putting the world’s most efficient free trade, tariff-free, frictionless agreement into the bin, and being told to pay for the privilege of downgrading to an  inferior deal with our European neighbours? Why is she being so coy about the deal that is being done? The Government have gone from “go whistle” to “where do we sign?”
In a week when the Government will still not fully publish the Brexit impact assessment papers to this House, we are now hearing rumours that Parliament and the public may never be told the full amount. When will Parliament be told what is actually happening and will we get a vote on the sums of money involved? Will the Chief Secretary, right here and right now, scotch this nonsense that the true costs of Brexit will be hidden away in a convenient backroom deal in the negotiations? The British people need to know whether there is a deal and how much the Government have put on the table in the negotiations. If she will not tell us, why does she think that the only people who cannot be told are the British public and the British Parliament? This is not what the British public voted for in the referendum. It is not taking back control; it is losing control.

Elizabeth Truss: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what my constituents say: “The country has voted to leave the European Union.” What they want to see is us getting on with that and securing the best possible deal for Britain. If we look at the Opposition Benches, we can see Members who, like the hon. Gentleman, voted to stay in the single market and the customs union, and we also see Opposition Front Benchers who voted to leave the single market and the customs union. Today we read that the shadow Home Secretary wants a second referendum. That is not remotely helpful in securing the best possible deal.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are in negotiations as we speak. If we were to talk about numbers and aspects of the deal in this House, we would be cutting across our negotiating position. The people of Britain want us to get on with it, to take the advantages of leaving the European Union, to make the most of the opportunities and to secure the best possible deal. We are well on the way to doing that. I suggest that, rather than trying to refight the referendum battle, which is exactly what the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing, he needs to get with the programme and to start talking about how he can be helpful.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no Government of any EU member state could possibly be expected to agree that we should have a good future trade and economic relationship with the European Union while, at the same time, we repudiate all our past financial obligations and somehow refuse to pay a fair share of the costs of agencies and so on that will be incurred in the future? Does she therefore agree that those who oppose paying any money presumably want a no-deal Brexit, which would be catastrophic for this country, and would stop the opportunity that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has of negotiating a deal that retains as many benefits as possible for jobs, investment and the growth of this country’s economy?

Elizabeth Truss: As the Prime Minister laid out in her Florence speech, we do want to abide by the commitments we made during our period of membership, and we also want to see progress on securing a deal. My right hon.  and learned Friend is right that any settlement that we seek to achieve has to be contingent on getting a suitable outcome from the negotiations, as has been outlined by the Prime Minister, because we want to ensure that any money spent is value for money for the British taxpayer.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for raising this critical question.
As we all know, settling this issue is vital to continuing to the next part of the negotiations. Given that progress has been so much slower than we would have hoped, the Opposition support efforts to resolve this part of the negotiations as soon as is feasible, so that we can start to make progress to end the uncertainty that is impacting on jobs and the economy.
The financial settlement with the EU must meet our international obligations while delivering a fair deal for British taxpayers. The UK is a responsible country and there is no mileage in our refusing to meet our obligations. If we are to negotiate a comprehensive new trade agreement with the European Union, which we will need for future jobs and prosperity, we must be seen as a country that can be trusted to comply with the deals that we reach.
Given our long-standing membership of the European Union, the calculation will understandably be complex. Given that this is a sensitive part of the negotiations, we appreciate that the Government cannot announce a figure publicly at this stage, but they must be transparent about the process, especially once an understanding has been reached with our EU partners. That is why we have tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that calls for any financial settlement to be assessed by the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office, and for Parliament to have the chance to scrutinise it. The Government’s handling of the presentation of the impact assessment studies to Parliament has left a lot to be desired, so may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to promise that, in the interests of transparency and clarity, the Government will support that amendment?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supportive comments. I am glad that he agrees with the Government’s strategy. The next step will be making sure that his Back-Bench colleagues also agree with his strategy. He is absolutely right that we should not reveal the details of negotiations while they are ongoing. However, the Opposition’s approach of saying that any deal is better than no deal is not the best way of securing a deal. Although our preferred option is an implementation period followed by a strong agreement, we are preparing for all eventualities, which is why we are putting in £3 billion. I suggest that the Opposition should also support that very responsible approach.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not in favour of anything that is not legal, so I support my right hon. Friend completely. I am also in line with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), in that whatever the legal agreement is, bound against the contingency of a free trade arrangement, it is exactly what the Government will set out to do. Will the Chief Secretary please remind those who have raised this question that even if  we agreed a figure of something in the order of £40 billion over 40 years, because we will not be paying contributions to the European Union, it means that the UK Exchequer will be better off by £360 million in the course of those 40 years—a net gain, with a free trade arrangement?

Elizabeth Truss: My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Whatever happens, we will not be paying anything like what we would have paid as an EU member. That represents a considerable saving to the British taxpayer.

Kirsty Blackman: I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for bringing this matter to the House.
There would be no newspaper rumours about the sum if the Government actually told us what the sum was. Nobody voted for this disastrous, disorganised EU exit. People voted for £350 million a week for the NHS, not to spend £40 billion or £50 billion just to be worse off. Our public services must not pay the price for this Brexit mess. It surprised us all when the Prime Minister found a magic money tree earlier this year, so surely the Government cannot have been lucky enough to find two. Given that last week’s Budget did not make provision for this £40 billion or £50 billion, will the Chancellor now bring forward an emergency Budget to explain where he is finding the money?

Elizabeth Truss: When the hon. Lady stood up, I thought that she was going to thank the Government for the £2 billion additional spending power that we gave to the Scottish Government in the Budget, which they will no doubt be able to use to improve their public services. As I have said before—and, indeed, as has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—talking about the money now would cut across the negotiations and prevent us from getting the best possible deal. That is not in anyone’s interests.

John Redwood: I am glad that the Government have confirmed today that they are carrying on with comprehensive preparations for no deal, because it is very important that we are not up against the clock at the end and forced into a bad deal because we have no alternative. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that no deal has the great advantage of no payments whatever under the divorce bill heading, meaning that when the Government recommend a deal, it has to be visibly better?

Elizabeth Truss: My right hon. Friend is correct. It is irresponsible for Opposition Front Benchers to suggest that any deal is better than no deal. That is the way that we will not get our preferred option, which is an implementation period plus our preferred economic partnership. We are allocating £3 billion to ensure that we are prepared for all eventualities.

Hilary Benn: The United Kingdom is currently a member of a large number of EU agencies, from that dealing with aviation safety to the European Medicines Agency. Have the Government made an assessment of the likely cost to the Exchequer of having to replicate all those functions and activities, if they eventually decide that we have to leave all of them  because of their stated principled objection to the European Court of Justice having any jurisdiction over the United Kingdom?

Elizabeth Truss: I have been very clear with the House that we are preparing for all eventualities. Of course, looking at the specifics of those agencies is a part of that.

David Jones: As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister made a fair and generous offer to the European Union in her Florence speech. Given that article 50 provides that the negotiations that are under way should take account of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the European Union reciprocated and started adhering to its obligations under the treaty?

Elizabeth Truss: As my right hon. Friend points out, it is important that we move on to the next stage of the negotiations and talk about our long-term relationship with the European Union once we have left. That is exactly what we seek to do.

Yvette Cooper: The problem with the Chief Secretary’s answer is that all our constituents saw the slogan on the side of a bus. If the Government simply say nothing—if they keep radio silence for a long time—and then suddenly pluck a figure out of a hat at the end of the process, it will just be incomprehensible to everyone. Surely she can tell the House the kinds of things that the Government think they should be funding—pension contributions or whatever else—rather than just leaving everyone in the dark.

Elizabeth Truss: I refer the right hon. Lady to the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, in which she laid out the commitments that we want to continue to honour, in the spirit of our future partnership, after we have left the European Union. The right hon. Lady has to be aware that this is part of a discussion that is also about our future relationship, and all those elements are contingent on securing our future relationship, as the Prime Minister laid out in her Florence speech. It would be wrong at this stage—from the point of view of not only the negotiations, but transparency to the public—to lay out something before it is fully agreed. That would not be helpful.

Owen Paterson: To cheer up the miseries on the Opposition Benches, perhaps they would like to look at the prospective budget published by Economists for Free Trade in the week before the Budget. It is a really exciting prospectus that says that our economy will grow at 3% a year by 2025, providing an infrastructure surplus of £60 billion, which easily covers the £18.2 billion a year for the famous £350 million. But that is contingent on reciprocal free trade with zero tariffs, so will my right hon. Friend guarantee that there will be no legally binding commitment to spend money until our partners agree to a serious free trade deal that is based on reciprocal free trade and zero tariffs?

Elizabeth Truss: I fear that my right hon. Friend is over-optimistic if he thinks we can stop Opposition Members from being miserable. We tried that over four days of Budget debate, but we have been unsuccessful  so far. He is absolutely right to talk about the benefits of free trade for the British economy—I completely agree with him. We are seeking a good deal that benefits the UK in the long term.

Tom Brake: At least £45 billion, higher inflation and debt, an extra year of cuts, and less influence in the world are the price that the Government are willing to pay for a deluded vision of Great Britain post Brexit. Is there any level of damage that the economy, jobs and families in the UK would have to sustain that would cause the Government to rethink and give the people a vote on the deal? That would be supported by the Liberal Democrats and Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor—and, as I understand it now, the shadow Home Secretary?

Elizabeth Truss: I see, regrettably, that the misery has spread to the Liberal Democrats; there seems to be a contagion on the Opposition Benches. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to welcome the fact that this country has the lowest unemployment in 40 years. We also have the third highest number of start-ups in the world—a record number for this country—and the other positive benefits that we are seeing due to the actions of this Conservative Government.

John Baron: Most of us—certainly those of us on the Conservative Benches—accept that a good trade deal is better than no deal, that there is always give and take in a negotiation, and that it is important that we meet our financial commitments. However, does the Minister accept that this issue is largely a storm in a teacup, because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed? It is important to make that point and not to listen to the few siren voices who still refuse to accept the result of the referendum.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right. Regrettably, there are people—particularly on the Opposition Benches—who still do not seem to accept democracy and that fact that people did vote to leave the European Union.

Chris Bryant: The thing is that the Government are keeping their cards so close to their chest that I suspect they have not even looked at them themselves. For that matter, the left hand certainly does not know what the right hand is doing, because the Minister is obviously making it clear that we are going to pay lots of money for a no-deal outcome, yet the Foreign Secretary boldly and quite confidently told this House that our foreign counterparts could “go whistle”. What was he suggesting that they should whistle—“Stand and deliver your money or your life”?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that considerable work is taking place across Government, but it would be wrong to cut across our negotiators in the deal they are seeking to strike. It is in our country’s interests to reach the point where we are talking about our long-term economic relationship with the European Union.

Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend should not pay more than we owe, but she should be confident that, whatever that is, it is a bargain against the cost of staying in.

Elizabeth Truss: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Were we to stay in, the costs would be considerably higher than any amount we are talking about as part of our negotiations.

Louise Ellman: The Government are so intent on keeping information they have about Brexit secret that they are actually risking contempt of Parliament. As this even more secret financial settlement is negotiated, how can we be sure that it really represents the national interest?

Elizabeth Truss: As I have pointed out already, these negotiations are not yet complete—there is not a number that we can disclose to the House. Absolutely, when there is one, and when there is more detail to give, we will come to the House and talk about it.

Robert Halfon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following a good Budget, and given the need for good housekeeping and the pressures on public spending, if the impression is given that we have wads of cash when it comes to Europe, that undermines our arguments on the public sector and on the need for good housekeeping, especially since the House of Lords says that we have no legal financial obligations? Does she not also agree that this is not a divorce bill? We are leaving a club, and once someone leaves a club, they no longer have to pay subscriptions.

Elizabeth Truss: First, we were able to make sure that we stuck within our fiscal rules at the Budget, making sure that debt is falling as a proportion of GDP for the first time in 13 years, and keeping within our deficit targets. At the same time, we were able to freeze fuel duty to help ordinary working people, who need to keep their living costs down. We were able to do all those things. The reality is that, as we leave the European Union, we will no longer be paying those vast sums in, and that will represent a benefit to the taxpayer.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that 70% of the people who voted in Bolsover voted to leave? But let me also say this to her: those same people in Bolsover, I believe, would expect me to tell the right hon. Lady from the finance Department that if the Government have £60 billion to spare, it should go to the national health service and social care.

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, as part of last week’s Budget, we were able to put additional money into the national health service—into hospital capital and making sure we hit our A&E targets—and we are also allocating money to help with nurses’ pay. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be pleased about that.

Julian Lewis: These negotiations remind me of the even more complex ones on arms reductions in the 1980s. Will the Minister bear it in mind that the lessons of those negotiations were, first, that too many one-sided concessions project an image of weakness and, secondly, that to get the very best deal, we often have to walk away first and wait for the other side to agree with us, come back, sit down and negotiate realistically?

Elizabeth Truss: It is because we need to make sure that the European Union is aware we have alternatives that we are preparing not only for our preferred option of a transition period plus a long-term economic agreement,  but for a no-deal scenario. The Opposition want to give that option away, so we would not be able to have that discussion with the European Union.

Pat McFadden: There are two salient features about the news that is emerging. The first is that this is the opposite of what was promised during the referendum. We were promised £350 million a week more, and now the Government are set to pay up to £50 billion, when our constituents urgently need money for health, housing, policing and much more. But, secondly, what is it that we are paying for? Other countries pay significant sums to get into the single market; we are lining up to pay up to £50 billion to leave the single market. Is not the tragedy that these huge sums are going to pay for a worse deal than we have at present? That is hardly strategic genius.

Elizabeth Truss: It is absolutely right that the UK honours its commitments in the spirit of our future partnership, but as I have said before, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will expect to make progress and secure that long-term economic partnership, which will be to the benefit of UK citizens.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my right hon. Friend note the growing concern  at the fact that Her Majesty’s Government seem in these negotiations to be dancing to the tune of the  European Commission? Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), may I also ask whether she can be certain that, after 29 March 2019, we will make no payments to the European Union whatever in the absence of a full agreement covering trade?

Elizabeth Truss: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not dancing to anyone’s tune. What we care about is the future of Britain’s economy, protecting the British taxpayer from excess payments and making sure we secure a good deal, which is why it is so important that we do not discuss these numbers while we are in the middle of a very important negotiation.

Jonathan Edwards: I have been informed by a former public finances auditor that international accounting standard 37, on provisions, contingent liabilities and contingent assets, requires the UK Government to account for the divorce payment as expenditure in their public finances—even if the exact amount cannot be calculated. Given that the Government accounts for 2016-17 did not adequately disclose the potential liability, as required by IAS 37, will the Minister give assurances that a liability of this magnitude will now be included in the supplementary estimates for 2017-18 and that that provision will be subject to a vote of this House?

Elizabeth Truss: That would be wrong according to accounting principles, because nothing has been agreed. The Office for Budget Responsibility followed the Prime Minister’s Florence speech in laying out its projections for the Budget. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he has misinterpreted those standards.

Philip Davies: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she agrees that the UK should pay the EU what we are legally obliged to pay—not a penny   more and not a penny less? If so, will she make sure that, before this House votes on the final bill, we have an itemised account of exactly what we are paying for at the end, and also the legal basis on which we are making those payments? I have to say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is absolutely right: if there is any spare money going at a time of austerity, it should be directed to our priorities in the UK; we should not give it as a bung to the European Union, which we are not legally obliged to do.

Elizabeth Truss: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to get the best possible deal for the British taxpayer, and we need to look at the deal in the round to see what represents value for money. Absolutely, the money should be spent on our public services and on keeping taxes low for our hard-working citizens.

Helen Goodman: Last week, the Treasury published the Red Book, which showed that there would be no more payments to EU institutions from 2019. It also said there was £15 billion of headroom and that debt would then fall. Does the news overnight not show that there is a £30 billion hole in the public finances and that there is no possibility of debt falling on that timescale?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Lady is not correct about that. The OBR has made predictions on EU payments and those are included in the Budget. Indeed, that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in the Budget debate last week.

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the Chief Secretary please confirm that any payments that are offered will be itemised, so that Parliament can understand the constitution of the payment and put it into the context of any likely conditioning that may be required in any deal on the future relationship?

Elizabeth Truss: I assure my hon. Friend that the payments that will potentially be made—as we have discussed, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed—will absolutely provide value for money.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) is right in his question to highlight the serious difficulties the country faces. I hope it is true that agreement has been reached on the costs of exit, so that the negotiations can move on to the next stage. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is essential to the UK’s national interest that the European Council agrees at its meeting next month that enough progress has been made to move on to discussions about future trade?

Elizabeth Truss: We absolutely want to secure movement on to the next stage of the negotiations. That is very important. Ultimately, it takes the UK and the EU27 to agree on that. It would be wrong to take the approach of the Opposition and say that we would agree to any deal, regardless of what it was. We have to look at and prepare for all eventualities.

Shailesh Vara: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the message to  the doom-mongers must be that the British public have   given their verdict and expect Parliament to deliver? The doom-mongers should recognise that we are the fifth strongest economy in the world and that our population is significantly greater than that of 15 EU countries put together. It is high time that they started talking Britain up, rather than talking it down.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition refuse to see any of the positive things that are happening in our country, whether it is the lowest youth unemployment rate for over 13 years or the highest number of new start-ups this country has ever seen. Great things are happening, so let us see a bit more optimism from the Opposition.

Ian Austin: People in the Black country voted to leave, but they were not told at any point that it could cost them £1 billion a week. They certainly were not told that it could make them worse off. If it is the case, as we have been told, that we will be much better off as a result of leaving and that there will be considerable savings, as the right hon. Lady promised a moment ago, will she promise that those savings will be used to replace the programmes that are currently funded by the EU, such as the crucial £50 million-a-year skills programme that operates in the Black country?

Elizabeth Truss: There will be savings once we leave the European Union, as I have made clear. We want to ensure that those savings are spent in the best interests of everybody in the UK to make our country as successful as it can be.

Henry Bellingham: The Chief Secretary will be very aware that her constituents and mine voted overwhelmingly to leave. Does she agree that it feels on the ground as though most people now want to get on with Brexit, but also that they expect the UK to be fair, generous and magnanimous, so long as the financial settlement is contingent on a free trade deal?

Elizabeth Truss: As my hon. Friend points out, the people of Norfolk are fair minded. They want the referendum result to be respected and they want to honour our commitments to the European Union, but they want that to happen in a way that is fair for Britain and British taxpayers and that ensures that we get the best possible deal.

Stephen Doughty: The figures are astronomical. Is it not the case that the British public are already paying the costs of this Government’s approach to Brexit in the form of the £3 billion that the Chancellor announced in the Budget would be spent on Brexit contingencies and the more than £700 million that he has already shelled out? Should people not have been told about that before the referendum?

Elizabeth Truss: It is completely irresponsible of the Opposition to suggest that we should not prepare for all eventualities. It would be disgraceful for the Government not to do that. That would not be the proper action of a responsible Government.

Peter Bone: For the first time in my parliamentary career, I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). He is absolutely  right. The 60%-odd of people in Wellingborough who voted to leave would want to know what we were doing with £60 billion. They would want it to be spent on the NHS, social care and defence. They would not want it to be given to the European Union. Does the Chief Secretary agree that such a move would betray the trust of the British people?

Elizabeth Truss: The amounts of money we have read about in the press are speculation. The negotiations are ongoing and we want to secure value for money for the British taxpayer. It is in our interest to secure a long-term economic partnership with the European Union, but we will not pay over money until everything is agreed.

Drew Hendry: Page 25 of the Government’s brand new industrial strategy document states that the Government are seeking a transition—sorry, an implementation period—of “around two years”. Does the reported deal include provision to pay for an extended deal beyond two years?

Elizabeth Truss: The negotiations are taking place at the moment. We want to secure a reasonable transition deal, but we have to know what the future relationship will be like before we enter into the transition deal. The British public will not accept the can being kicked down the road. They want to know that we are leaving the European Union.

Richard Graham: The greatest risk to the new partnership that both the UK and the EU want is that the EU makes such unreasonable demands that no British Government could accept them, on the wrong assumption that this House will never vote for no deal. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that all Members who want a good deal, like the hon. Members for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), should make it absolutely clear to their constituents that they do not subscribe to the ludicrous idea that any deal is better than no deal?

Elizabeth Truss: I fear that Opposition Members have not made that logical leap yet, but I am sure that my hon. Friend’s question will have helped them reconsider in their own minds.

Gavin Shuker: rose—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Extraordinary behaviour! It is good of the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) to drop in on us.

Gavin Shuker: Can the right hon. Lady name any moment in any aspect of the negotiations so far when the Government have gone head to head with the EU27 on an issue on which they have competing ideas about what to do and come out on top? Is this not yet another example of the Government crumbling and facing up to the reality of leaving the EU?

Elizabeth Truss: We are making continuous progress in our negotiations with the EU. Of course, in any negotiation there has to be give and take from both sides. That is exactly what is happening. However, it would be wrong to expose the details of the negotiations at this stage.

Philip Hollobone: In any divorce, the assets are divided. Given that in today’s money—in real terms—our net contribution to the EU over the lifetime of our membership amounts to £209 billion, will my right hon. Friend make sure that we get our fair share of the EU’s assets when we leave?

Elizabeth Truss: I assure my hon. Friend that that consideration is part of our discussions.

Daniel Zeichner: Before making a big decision, it is generally sensible to inquire about the price. Most people will be staggered to learn that the average household in this country will be asked to stump up between £2,000 and £3,000 to pay for this. What plans do the Government have to tell people about the bill they are facing and to ask them whether they think it is a good use of their money?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at both sides of the account, because we will not be paying ongoing vast sums into the EU as we are at the moment. He needs to look at the big picture.

RAIL UPDATE

Chris Grayling: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our plans for Britain’s railways. Those railways were privatised in the mid-1990s against a backdrop of what many regarded as terminal decline. The radical Beeching cuts of the 1960s had been followed by further line closures under British Rail, and passenger numbers had been falling steadily since the second world war, yet privatisation sparked a remarkable turnaround in the railway’s fortunes. More than a million and a half more trains are timetabled each year than was the case 20 years ago, and passenger demand has more than doubled. Other countries are now adopting Great Britain’s rail model in their own markets.
To support that growth and reverse decades of underinvestment in the infrastructure, we have embarked on the biggest rail modernisation programme since the Victorian age. In addition to Government funding, billions of pounds of investment from the private sector is helping to renew and expand train fleets, upgrade stations and transform services across the country, and franchises are making an increasing contribution to the public purse. The rail renaissance we are seeing in Great Britain today is the direct result of a successful partnership between public and private sectors.
That partnership has delivered real benefits for passengers for more than 20 years, but that success has created its own challenges. As the number of services has increased, our network has become more and more congested, making the delivery of the punctual, reliable services that passengers expect more challenging. On much of the network, our railway is operating on the edge of what it can cope with. It carries more passengers today than it did in its heyday in the 1920s, on a network that is a fraction of the size. When things go wrong, the impact can be widespread and quick, causing significant frustration for the travelling public.
That is why last year I announced plans to start bringing together the operation of track and train on our railways. I said at the time that it should be a process of evolution and not revolution, and that the exact approach might differ from area to area, but the outcome must be the same: a railway that is predominantly run by a joint local team of people with an absolute commitment to the smooth running of the timetable whether they are planning essential repairs, responding to incidents on the line or communicating with passengers.
Today I am publishing more details about our plans, and an update on what we are doing and the steps we are taking to realise our ambitions. That publication, “Connecting people: a strategic vision for rail”, explains how we will create a new generation of regional rail operations with a relentless focus on the passengers, economies and communities they serve. It represents the biggest change to the delivery of rail services since privatisation.
Although we have already achieved significant structural improvements—with joined-up working between operators and Network Rail, and Network Rail’s own transformation into a series of regional route businesses—the document explains our plans to go much further. Where doing so will deliver real benefits for passengers, many future rail  franchises will be run by a joint team, made up of staff from Network Rail and the train company, and headed by a new alliance director. That will make the railway more reliable for passengers by devolving powers to local routes and teams, and ensuring that one team is responsible for running the railways and the related infrastructure.
Today I am issuing the invitation to tender for the next south-eastern franchise. That will, among other things, deliver longer trains, providing space for at least 40,000 additional passengers in the morning rush hour. A simpler, high-frequency “turn up and go” timetable on suburban routes will boost capacity and provide a better service to passengers. As part of the unification of track and train, the day-to-day operations on the south-eastern network will be run by a joint team led by a new alliance director who heads both the train and track operations. On the east midland main line we will also introduce a joint team approach, bringing more benefits to passengers.
Hon. Members will know that the east coast main line has had its challenges in recent times, and I intend to take a different approach on that route. From 2020, the east coast partnership will run the intercity trains and track operations on this route. That partnership between the public and private sector will operate under one management and a single brand, overseen by a single leader. It will take a leading role in planning the future route infrastructure and meeting the challenges that it faces. Bringing the perspective of train operators to decisions on rail infrastructure will help to ensure that passenger needs are better represented in the process. While we run a competition to appoint the east coast partnership members, we are in discussions with the existing east coast franchise operator to ensure that the needs of passengers and taxpayers are met in the short term, and laying the foundations for the reforms I have just outlined.
I want the passenger to be central to train operators’ strategies. On some parts of the network, that will mean that we introduce smaller train companies. I am today launching a consultation on the great western franchise, to seek views on how it can best meet the needs of passengers and communities in the 2020s and beyond. We want to establish whether it should be retained in its current form or divided into smaller parts, with more of a local focus, to deliver best for customers. We will also begin the process of splitting up the Thameslink, southern and great northern franchise in 2021. The two franchises were put together with the intention of helping the implementation of the £6 billion Thameslink upgrade investment programme, which is now near completion.
Despite the improvements in the railway since privatisation, we are still some way from achieving the modern, high-performance, low-cost and customer-focused industry we all want to see. That is why we must continue to reform and invest in the railway, and maximise the contribution that both public and private sectors make to improving services. We will continue to deliver the biggest investment programme in our railways since the steam age, something the Labour party never did when it was in government.
Getting to grips with industry structure will go hand in hand with investment in infrastructure. We need new capacity to cope with growing demand, and new links to support economic growth and housing development.  The great north rail project is transforming journeys across the north, providing faster, more comfortable journeys, new direct services and room for tens of thousands more passengers. Every single train in the north of England will be replaced with as-new or brand new stock—that change was never made when the Labour party was in power.
I intend to invest around £3 billion in upgrading the trans-Pennine route to deliver faster journey times and improved capacity between the great cities of Leeds, York and Manchester. In the south, flagship projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink are coming on stream and providing the capacity to underpin economic growth. Our investment in HS2 will bring north and south closer together, and bring benefits to people across the country. It is a new railway for a new era for rail. It is a bold and ambitious project, but if it were not for ambition and faith in the power of rail to transform the country, we would have no railways at all.
Our vision rejects the mentality of decline that characterised the railway in the second half of the 20th century. To complement record levels of private investment, we recently announced Government funding of up to £34.7 billion for the railway in the years 2019 to 2024, as part of an overall expected spend of £47.9 billion. That will support an overhaul of the network’s ageing assets and other vital work and improvements. Passengers value reliability more than anything, and this commitment will help to deliver it.
We also want to create new connections. We are establishing the East West Rail company to restore the rail link between Oxford and Cambridge that was lost to passengers in 1967 and to provide a major boost to the region. I expect construction work to begin next summer. We will look at other opportunities to restore capacity lost under Beeching and British Rail cuts of the 1960s and 1970s, where such projects would unlock development and growth, offer value for money and unlock the potential for housing.
Large projects and industry reform take time, but passengers want faster improvements in their day-to-day experience travelling on the railway. We do too, and we are doing something about it. We are pushing to have smart ticketing available across almost all the network by the end of 2018. We are improving arrangements for compensation and dispute resolution when things go wrong, including by supporting the establishment of a new passenger ombudsman. We are working with industry to extend the benefits of discounted rail travel, to ensure that all who are aged 16 to 30 can access appropriate concessions. We are investing in new digital technologies and better mobile connectivity. We are committed to improving the accessibility of the network and delivering a modern customer experience that is open to all.
I know that the Labour party does not believe this, but privatisation brought a revolution to our railways—that is why there are twice as many passengers as there were 20 years ago. But now is the time for evolution to build on that success: joining up track and train, expanding the network, modernising the customer experience and opening up the railway to innovation. We have a vision of a revitalised railway that is used to its full potential, delivered by a partnership between the public and private sectors, supporting people, communities and the economy.  We are taking real action to make that vision a reality. I am making copies of the strategic vision available in the Libraries of both Houses, and the great western and south-eastern documents are now on the website of the Department for Transport. I commend this statement to the House.

Andy McDonald: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement, the contents of which have already been well trailed in the media.
The Secretary of State and I can be in agreement on rail’s need for investment and new capacity, and I am delighted that he has picked up Labour’s manifesto commitment to reopen branch lines. The problem is that the current system and the structure of the railways do not lend themselves well to the receipt of new investment or the delivery of new capacity. The majority of the recent problems on the railway can be traced back to the planning for control period 5, when the Office of Rail and Road said that Network Rail had to make efficiency savings of 18%. The ORR got this wrong, and the railway has suffered the consequences.
We are where we are on rail, and I am afraid that the Secretary of State has, frankly, now run out of ideas for what to do with the railways, but Labour has a solution, which I will refer to in a moment. The Secretary of State proposes an alliance on the east coast line between track and train. This was done only a few years ago between Stagecoach and Network Rail on the south-west franchise, but Stagecoach pulled out because it was too expensive. Trains on the east coast may be labelled Virgin trains, but they are actually run by Stagecoach. What makes the Secretary of State think that this alliance with Stagecoach will be any different?
The Secretary of State says he will break up the GTR’s southern and great western franchises. GTR was always going to be broken up at the end of the contract in 2021, so this is not new. His calamitous oversight of the contract only adds to the urgent need to put the whole thing out of its misery for the sake of the passengers.
The Secretary of State says he will reopen lines. He announced the Oxford-Cambridge line a year ago. His new, privately funded line will operate with polluting diesel trains. What about the air quality? Labour supports reopening lines, but, without financial backing, the Secretary of State’s proposals mean nothing in reality. It is all well and good to reverse the Beeching cuts, but what about reversing the Grayling cuts to the great western, the midland mainline and northern railways? The Department’s website hails the reopening of the line
“from Blyth to Ashington in County Durham.”
If it is all right with him, I would prefer Blyth and Ashington to stay in Northumberland.
The Secretary of State’s proposals offer nothing for commuters on overcrowded trains who are facing a fare hike of 3.4% in January on top of the 27% rises since 2010. The truth is that the rail system is broken. No amount of rearranging the furniture will change this central fact. I regret that the Secretary of State cannot recognise or admit this.
Today’s announcement is a total smokescreen. We can put all this to one side; the real issue is that the east coast franchise has failed again and the taxpayer will  have to bail it out. Markets do not lie, and the Stagecoach share price has risen by 12% this morning following the news that the Secretary of State has let it off the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds by ending the current franchise early. He has moved the goalposts to suit Stagecoach. He is tough on everyone except the private sector. Labour took the franchise into public ownership in 2009, and it should have stayed there. Conservative dogma put it back out to the market in 2015, and it has now failed again.
The Government’s proposals are more window dressing that will solve none of rail’s urgent problems. Only Labour has the vision and the courage to deliver the railway the public deserves. The public want public ownership of the railways, and the next Labour Government will deliver it.

Chris Grayling: Fortunately, this country will be waiting a long time for that to happen. What Labour Members really want is to take us back to the days of British Rail, but they have not explained to us how they would pay for all the new trains currently funded by the private sector, or how they would pay for longer trains and better services all around the country. What they do not tell us is that, with a publicly run railway, trains would have to compete for capital costs with hospitals and schools and we would just not get the investment we are currently getting in our railways. Going back to British Rail is simply no solution for the improvements this country desperately needs.
The hon. Gentleman asked a series of specific questions. What is different is what is happening within Network Rail. The devolution within Network Rail—more of a local focus, local decision making, local budgets—is absolutely crucial in making local partnerships possible. We are driving through that change right now, off the back of Nicola Shaw’s report on Network Rail, and it is the right thing to do for the future.
The hon. Gentleman talked about GTR, but I remind the House that the independent Gibb report showed that the GTR problems were substantially down to the actions of the hon. Gentleman’s friends in the unions. Such conduct was unacceptable, and the Labour party’s continuing support for the disruption that unions are causing to passengers on the railways is utterly unacceptable.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the Oxford-Cambridge railway line. I did actually give an update on that. Last year, I said we were going to do it. This year, I am saying that we are now ready to start work on that route in the next few months. This Conservative Government are delivering real improvements and real investment on the railways.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the finance for reopening lines. He may have missed these announcements in the Budget, but I can assure him that there will be £2 billion more for investment in transport in our  cities, and there will be £47 billion for investment in the railways over the next five years. We will, indeed, be funding investment in the expansion of the railways, because that is what is needed.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about electrification. I say again that in a world where we have more flexible technology, I regard it as more of a priority to provide more services and more routes for passengers than to save one minute on the journey time  to Sheffield and no minutes on the journey time to Swansea. I am doing what we need to do, which is to deliver better journeys, better journey times and new trains for passengers, which is what they want above all. They are not worried about how the trains are powered, but about whether they will have a nice new train that gets them to the right place, and that is what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the Blyth-Ashington line. It is one of the projects I am looking at seriously. I think it has real potential to expand the investment we are already making in the Metro in Newcastle upon Tyne, and it is another example of this Government’s commitment to the north-east.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing for commuters. All around the country, we and the private sector, together in partnership, are delivering new trains and longer trains to create more space for people who travel on our crowded railway lines each day.
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, let us be absolutely clear for the House that as we bring the east coast franchise to a close and move to the new arrangements, no one will get any bail-out at all. It is absolutely clear that Stagecoach will meet in full the commitments it made to the Government as part of this contract, and that is what will happen.

Iain Stewart: I warmly welcome the commitment in the strategy document to the east-west railway line through my constituency and the announcement that its construction will start very soon. Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about when he expects the western section of the line to be up and running, and how this will feed into the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendations on the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right that this is an important project. We have been pushing ahead hard with the new special purpose vehicle, which will be set up in the coming weeks. Construction is due to begin next summer, and my goal is to have the first trains running on that route by the end of 2021.

Alan Brown: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. Unfortunately, I am having to thank him for early sight of what is a disappointing damp squib. Given the media coverage last night about the possible reversal of the Beeching cuts, I hoped there would be some firm commitments in the statement, but there is nothing other than a throwaway line.
The Beeching cuts were typical of the Tory policy of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, and this attitude continues in the Secretary of State’s ideological adherence to privatisation. While he worships the private sector, he needs to remember that there are already four foreign state-owned rail companies operating existing UK franchises. If it is good enough for foreign state-owned companies, it should be good enough for UK state-owned companies to run the franchises. I hope that he supports the Scottish Government’s move to make a public sector bid in Scotland.
The Secretary of State trumpets the turnaround in rail since privatisation, but he does not say that it has been driven by a 90% increase in public sector investment  and a real-terms fare increase of a quarter. That is where the real investment and the turnaround have come from. The Secretary of State’s real masterplan is to create alliances and effectively to sub-divide Network Rail, so I have the following questions. What is the overall governance structure to prevent inter-alliance conflict? Given that he is such a fan of devolution, will he devolve Network Rail to Scotland? Who will fund the new railcard for 26 to 30-year-olds? Will the smart ticket system automatically provide consumers with the cheapest fares? If he is considering reopening lines, will he stop the fire sale of Network Rail assets? He will be well aware that the Scottish Government built the biggest new line in the UK for more than 100 years, on the borders. Will he consider reconnecting Carlisle to the borders by rail? Finally, what are the statement’s funding implications for Scotland, and will he review the existing funding gap of £600 million in control period 6?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has asked a mix of questions; let me take them in turn. On devolution, it remains this Government’s position that we will follow the recommendation, which was part of the broader devolution package, that the Scottish Government should be responsible for franchising but not for the infrastructure. The Scottish National party needs to demonstrate that it can do a decent job in government with the powers it has, rather than ask for more powers.
We are working through the railcard with the industry. The extra revenues may well mean that it will be a self-financing venture, but the Treasury has underwritten it in the Budget process. On the cheapest fare options, I want a system of smart ticketing on our railways so that, for future shorter journeys, we end up with the kind of pay-as-you-go technology that exists in London and other cities, so that people can tap in and tap out as they travel. For longer journeys, ticketing is likely to be based on mobile phones and barcodes. We are working to achieve those objectives as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of assets. There are times when assets are genuinely not needed. They can be sold and the money put back into the railway line—that is the right thing to do—but of course there are assets that we need to protect for the future. Frankly, I wish that some assets had not been disposed of or built over, because that makes it more difficult to reopen some of the routes that I would like to be reopened. We will protect the assets we need.
I applaud the Scottish Government for what they have done with Borders Railway, which is a good project and has made a positive difference to that part of Scotland. I am happy to talk to my Scottish counterparts about how we can do more in the future.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the funding settlement. As I have said before in this House, the funding settlement for Scotland for rail is based on the Barnett formula, which the SNP does not usually argue against. I do not think it can have its cake and eat it.

Tim Loughton: I welcome the news that the GTR franchise is to be broken up. It is too big to be managed and has a management incapable of managing it, but given that it has frequently been unable to live up to its performance  indicators, why do we have to wait until 2021 to get a competent operator in charge of a manageable franchise area?

Chris Grayling: The real thing we have to achieve is to get through the rest of the Thameslink investment programme. In the coming months, we will also do some significant works on the Brighton main line, spending the £300 million I committed last year to doing the big parts of the project around Balcombe, for example. I would not wish us to destabilise things during that period, but once that is done we will need to get on with making the change.

Lilian Greenwood: Alliancing and joint teams can improve dialogue between Network Rail and operators, but that is not a fundamentally different proposition from what has happened before and what is happening now on certain segments of the railway. The underlying factors that contribute to the misalignment between operators and Network Rail—namely, separate performance regimes and financial incentives—simply do not appear to have been addressed. Will the Secretary of State set out the specific steps he intends to take to tackle those fundamental structural shortcomings, so that we finally have a railway that drives co-ordinated performance, cost-reductions and improved reliability?

Chris Grayling: We are already, in the alliance areas and, indeed, elsewhere, moving to aligned performance incentives and aligned key performance indicators. That work is already happening on routes such as great western, where a route board and key performance indicators are being increasingly aligned, so that Network Rail has an incentive to look after passengers in a way that has not always been the case in the past. When it comes to a joint venture on the east coast main line, the KPIs will be the same, because there will be one team doing it. That is the benefit of having somebody in charge, a joint brand, joint planning of budgets and joint KPIs in the same team. That is what is different from the past.

Steve Double: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, this Government’s continued investment in our railways and the success that is possible only because of the partnership with the private sector. He will be aware that concerns have been raised about the break-up of the great western franchise. May I seek his reassurance that any proposals will not leave Devon and Cornwall isolated and that they will be introduced only if they are in the best interests of improving services to and from the south-west and provide value for money for the passenger?

Chris Grayling: First, let me be clear: I do not envisage a Devon and Cornwall-only franchise. That is not part of the plan. I am asking a legitimate question: should we go back to having, in effect, something like Wessex Trains and a franchise with its headquarters in the south-west, that provides regional services in the south-west and that could theoretically even do some of the long-distance services up to Paddington from Penzance? There are pros and cons to that. This is a consultation  to ask the south-west what it thinks. It is no more and no less than that, and I want to get the right answer for the south-west.

Edward Davey: I welcome today’s big message that our railways work better when track and train are operated together and the fact that the Secretary of State is now trying to correct the big mistake in the original rail privatisation, when his party separated track and train ownership. May I ask him, on behalf of my constituents in Surbiton, to consider the urgent safety case for a new staircase at platforms 3 and 4 at Surbiton train station, given how dangerously overcrowded they can become during the evening peak?

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for bringing back together the operation of track and train. If he wants to catch me offline, I would be happy to look at the issue he raises.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He mentioned smaller railway operators. Will he clarify whether that includes open-access operators, and if so, does he foresee that leading to an extension of services such as those in my own area of northern Lincolnshire?

Chris Grayling: I am a strong supporter of open access, which plays an important part in the railways. The east coast main line has been a significant user of open access, or is a route on which there has been open-access operators. As we move into the era of HS2 and as we move express trains off some of the other routes, I expect there to be more, rather than less, scope for open access in the future. It is certainly not my intention for the open access available to my hon. Friend’s part of the country to be changed in coming years.

Ronnie Campbell: The east coast main line was run for many years by a not-for-profit company and it made a profit for the Treasury, but that is not what I want to ask about. I have been campaigning for 30 years to reopen the Blyth and Ashington line. Now that that is on the cards, will the Secretary of State tell me when it will happen, so that I can tell my constituents? I do not want to have to wait another 30 years, because I will be dead.

Chris Grayling: I will do my very best to make sure that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait that long. There is real short-term potential to reopen that route. I am not going to put a date on it today, but it makes a lot of sense to integrate it with the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Metro. We will push the project forward with feasibility and development plans.

Ronnie Campbell: When?

Chris Grayling: We are going to press ahead with it in the immediate future and look at what will not happen. I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman an exact date—I never do that.

Mims Davies: Eastleigh is a historic railway town, and transport issues really matter in my thriving but getting-more-busy-and-congested constituency,   which hosts Southampton airport. East-west connectivity between Portsmouth and Southampton on a railway line takes an hour. Will the Secretary of State commit to working across Departments to make sure that there is a joined-up approach for constituencies that not only provide housing, but are blighted by air pollution, congestion and a historic lack of investment in railway lines?

Chris Grayling: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is really important that, as we seek to develop more housing, we make sure that infrastructure is in place to cope with it, whether road, rail or cycle routes, or different forms of public transport in different parts of the country. I assure her that I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is in charge of the housing infrastructure fund, will look supportively at those parts of the country that are being asked to take on housing development and see how we can best provide infrastructure for them.

Ben Bradshaw: I echo the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) about the idea of breaking up the great western franchise because of the loss of ability to cross-subsidise from the more profit-making parts of the region to the more expensive parts in the far south-west. Exactly how much extra taxpayers’ money is he handing over to Stagecoach as a result of the Government’s botched and ideologically driven reprivatisation of what was a perfectly good and profitable publicly owned company?

Chris Grayling: The answer is that at this stage we have not yet reached final arrangements. My intention is not to hand over money, but to get the railway line in a preparation stage for the establishment of the east coast partnership. With regard to the great western franchise, this is genuinely a consultation. There are two options: we could continue with the great western franchise as it is, or we could create a second franchise that is focused on the south-west. I have heard both arguments. I am committed to having more accountability and better transport in and around the south-west, which is why we are finally dualling the A303, for example. This is a genuinely open consultation and I want to hear views about it.

James Cartlidge: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I totally support greater unification of train and track. For my constituents, it is absolutely maddening that when we have problems on the railway—unfortunately, we frequently do on the great eastern main line—Network Rail and the train operator can argue about who is to blame, because our constituents want a single body to point a finger at. Will he confirm that there will be far simpler accountability under these structures, and that when our Greater Anglia franchise expires, we will have the opportunity to look at this sort of regional arrangement?

Chris Grayling: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that this approach should spread across the whole rail network, with clearer accountability, clearer integration, clearer joint working when something   goes wrong and better joint planning for maintenance works and affected services. That is a really important part of ensuring that the railways work for the future.

Dennis Skinner: Why did the Secretary of State not use this opportunity to say that there would be electrification of the whole of the midland main line, instead of it stopping somewhere in Northampton to suit commuters travelling into London? The other business is that people in my constituency have been asking him for a meeting to try to put to him an alternative to the HS2 spur that will wreck 30 houses in a tiny village in my area. When will he answer their letter? He can tell me now.

Chris Grayling: On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, my hon. Friend the Rail Minister has already extended an invitation to that meeting, so we will happily talk to the hon. Gentleman’s office this afternoon and fix a date. With regard to the midland main line, we are in the early stages of what is the biggest investment programme in the line since the 1870s. It will mean faster journeys and brand new trains, years earlier than would otherwise have been the case. We can deliver those new trains in 2021-22. We could wait several years more for those new trains. We could spend £1 billion more, but all we would be doing is saving a minute on the journey time to Sheffield. I could be wrong, but I do not think that would be a terribly good use of taxpayers’ money.

Amanda Milling: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. What steps are being taken to improve stations, and particularly to improve disabled access at stations such as Rugeley Trent Valley?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Rail Minister has made improving accessibility on the rail network a particular part of his work. We will continue accessibility funding in control period 6, and the opportunity will be there for individual stations and areas to come forward with proposals on how we can do better in what is an extremely important challenge that the rail industry faces.

Drew Hendry: It is a year and a half since the then Under-Secretary of State responded to our calls to look at extending the borders rail link—incidentally, it was delivered on time and under budget by the Scottish Government—to Carlisle, and she said that she was interested in looking into that. Will the Secretary of State now take those discussions forward with the Scottish Government?

Chris Grayling: I am happy to take forward those discussions with the Scottish Government. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Rail Minister is meeting the borders rail campaign shortly. We absolutely understand the benefits that the project, which the Scottish Government have already delivered, has brought to the borders.

Bob Seely: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Isle of Wight there might be interest in extending the island line to the beautiful  seaside town of Ventnor and the county town of Newport—the latter has been made possible in part due to the foresight of the Isle of Wight steam railway in securing track in decades past? Will money be available for feasibility studies to assess the costs and benefits of opening up, for economic regeneration purposes, former branch lines that were closed in the ’60s?

Chris Grayling: In the new year we will publish a new process for evaluating new projects and moving them into development. I will happily talk with my hon. Friend about how that process will work and how he can have his project on the Isle of Wight considered.

Rachel Reeves: I have written to the Secretary of State about Kirkstall Forge railway station in my constituency. It opened just over a year ago, but only one train stops there an hour. If we are going to open new railway stations, we must have trains stopping at them. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet with Arriva Rail North and myself to talk about the frequency of services at Kirkstall Forge, so that we can get maximum benefit out of this housing and business development?

Chris Grayling: I am happy to have that conversation. When a new station opens, it is not unusual for it to start with an hourly service while the passenger ridership builds. Of course, as demand grows, services tend to grow. I am just delighted that we are able to invest in better station facilities in the hon. Lady’s constituency, which I am sure she will agree were long overdue.

Kevin Foster: I welcome the overall thrust of this plan. As the Secretary of State will know, it is probably no coincidence that the current GWR franchise covers roughly the same area that the railway company did back in the 1930s, so it is interesting to note the proposal to split. Can he reassure me that in any consideration of this the top priority will be services to passengers, particularly maintaining direct links between London Paddington and Paignton?

Chris Grayling: I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we want to see those services protected. Again, this is a genuine consultation. I do not have a pre-set view; I am relaxed and I want to listen to those people who represent the south-west and ask, “What works best for the constituents you represent?” We will listen and respond accordingly. There is certainly no prejudged view in the Department about what the right way forward is; we are simply asking the question.

Chris Elmore: The Secretary of State’s U-turn on his promise to electrify the line from Cardiff to Swansea included all the safety improvements that were part of that work, including the plan to close the level closing in Pencoed in my constituency. Can he set out, as part of his grand vision for the railways, how he will now invest in closing dangerous level crossings? While he is at it, will he explain how he will keep the promise on highway improvements in the same town, which were linked to rail electrification?

Chris Grayling: Safety remains fundamentally important for Network Rail. We are fortunate enough to have the safest rail network in Europe. Network Rail has a rolling programme to replace dangerous level crossings,   which will continue in all circumstances. I think that the Welsh Labour Government are rapidly reaching the same conclusion that we are reaching, because the versatility of bi-mode trains means that we do not always have to erect overhead cables. The hon. Gentleman talks about us making the wrong decisions, but I caution him to wait and see what the Welsh Government decide to do, because he might find that the Labour party agrees with us on the best way forward.

Maria Caulfield: I welcome the announcement that the southern and Thameslink franchise will be broken up—it cannot come soon enough for my constituents. Can I ask specifically about the line reopening, because we have the Lewes to Uckfield line in my constituency, with the BML2 scheme, which could be opened very easily, improving connectively and putting towns such as Seaford and Newhaven on a main line for the first time? We have private investors willing to put up over £15 million to fund that. Will the Secretary of State use that scheme as one of the first to illustrate what can really be done?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend knows that I have met the investors who are interested in pursuing that project, and I have said that I am very open to doing so. I am waiting with interest for them to come back with the first stage of their work. I would be delighted to see the route reopened, and I hope that the consortium pursuing the project will prove successful.

Jessica Morden: There was little mention of Wales in the Secretary of State’s letter to hon. Members on the great western consultation, yet key services run through my constituency. Just this morning, commuters to Bristol and beyond have yet again had to highlight the chronic lack of capacity as demand grows. Can he tell my constituents when they will see real action and improvement?

Chris Grayling: Of course, much of the responsibility for local services in the hon. Lady’s constituency lies with the Welsh Government, and I am looking forward to seeing the outcome of their work in delivering new trains and better services as part of the new franchise. As for what we are doing in her constituency, there is the electrification programme into Paddington and the investment in the intercity express trains, which are providing faster and better journeys, but I am expecting and hoping for a significant increase in services from Cardiff eastwards as part of the Wales and the borders franchise, which is one reason why we support the plan for Cardiff Parkway station. I am hoping for a significant enhancement, as part of that franchise, to the connections from Cardiff to Newport and Bristol.

Peter Aldous: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The east Suffolk line, which runs from Lowestoft to Ipswich, dodged the Beeching bullet and is now going from strength to strength, with a regular hourly service. Will he give an assurance that his improvements will provide the framework for further improvements, including a more frequent and faster service?

Chris Grayling: One of the things I am pleased we are doing in partnership with the private sector is the complete transformation of the train fleet across East Anglia. Every  single train will be replaced with brand-new trains that have more capacity for passengers. As demand grows, we will have to look again at routes such as my hon. Friend’s to see whether there is a need for more services. In the immediate future, however, I hope that his constituents will be delighted to see the brand-new trains arriving to deliver a better journey for them.

Paul Flynn: I am struck by the contrast between, on the one hand, the strength and wisdom of the best Select Committee report of my time in Parliament, the unanimous 1993 report by a Tory-dominated Committee chaired by the Secretary of State’s late colleague, Robert Adley, which forecast accurately all the problems that privatisation would bring, and, on the other hand, today’s statement, which seems nothing more than a piece of vacuous window dressing designed to distract us from the Government’s collapsing policies on Brexit.

Chris Grayling: There is nothing like trying to shoehorn every issue into one question, is there? The simple reality is that back in the 1990s our railways were in a state of decline—routes and stations were being closed, and there was even a plan to turn Marylebone station into a coach station. That was the reality of the days of British Rail. In the past 20 years, we have seen new trains, new routes and double the number of passengers. The problems today are the problems of success, not failure. That is why the approach in today’s statement is the right one. It is not designed to tear everything up and start again; it is designed to evolve the railways so that they are better placed to deal with the challenges that result from success.

Philip Hollobone: The last Labour Government halved the mainline northbound service from Kettering from a half-hourly service to an hourly service, but since then the significance of Kettering on the railway network has increased: there are now more passengers; it is effectively the hub between the commuter service to Corby and the main line northwards; and it is now to be the interface between the electrified part of the line and the diesel-operated part of the line. Will my right hon. Friend agree that Kettering would therefore be the ideal base for the new train and track operating team?

Chris Grayling: Kettering is a fine town and a well represented constituency, and I can absolutely understand the case that my hon. Friend and Kettering would make for its hosting the operating team. He is absolutely right that it is at the heart of the midland main line. It might have some competition from Derby and others, but he makes a strong case.

David Hanson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned in the Budget last week the north Wales growth deal, which includes a proposal for a metro linking north Wales and the north-west of England much more effectively. Has the Secretary of State received a cheque from the Chancellor?

Chris Grayling: Actually, it was my suggestion that we look at the project. I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman and understood the argument, and the Chancellor has provided development funding so that we can take that work forward.

Will Quince: Building alliances and closer working between Network Rail and train operating companies into franchises is a welcome move, but I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could advise us on how Network Rail will ultimately be held accountable for meeting the terms of future franchises or contracts, just as the train operating companies currently are. Also, will that mean that infrastructure improvements will now be considered as part of the franchising process?

Chris Grayling: On the latter point, they can be now—there is nothing to prevent train companies from coming forward with small-scale infrastructure proposals. I would be happy to see the private sector come forward with plans, for example, to introduce digital signalling on routes, but we will not move the infrastructure itself out of public ownership. The accountability comes from the performance measures we put in place for Network Rail and the people who lead it, but I think that devolution to individual routes will mean better services, a more local focus and more out-of-the-box thinking, which Network Rail needs to do if it is to deliver best value for everyone involved.

Rosie Cooper: My constituents will be listening with avid interest, because prior to the general election, the Transport Secretary visited my constituency and said that the reinstatement of the Burscough curves between Burscough, Preston and Ormskirk would be a “quick win” to help improve rail services in the north. When will we get this “quick win”? When will funding for that project, for electrification in the area and for the Skelmersdale railway station be forthcoming? My constituents look forward to him keeping his promise.

Chris Grayling: Of course, the people of West Lancashire will be getting the benefit of the investment programme in the line from Manchester to Blackpool. It is a huge investment in improving the services on that route. That, right now, is our priority. After that, I hope we will move forward with other projects that can make a difference to passengers in Lancashire and elsewhere in the north-west.

Jo Churchill: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the focus on passengers in particular. He will know that 30% of passenger improvements on Abellio Greater Anglia were due to the new fleet, but that 60% were due to the track. The Oxford-Cambridge line does not end at Cambridge, but goes through to Felixstowe and carries most of the freight for this country, so may I urge him to make Horley junction and Ely junction key priorities in order to deliver better services for both passengers and the freight industry?

Chris Grayling: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and reiterate the commitment I have given to people in East Anglia that in control period 6 the work on Ely junction will free up both freight and passenger access through that important junction and open up all kinds of opportunities across East Anglia. That will be an early priority for us.

Clive Efford: My constituents are used to travelling on trains where there is a link between those who run the track and those who run the rolling stock, but that body is the publicly run Transport for London, and the Secretary of State refuses to allow it to have anything to do with the south-eastern franchise based on the fact that we have a Labour Mayor. My constituents deserve better than his petty political grievances. Will he allow TfL to demonstrate that it is capable of running the franchise more efficiently than the private sector has done hitherto?

Chris Grayling: I would make two points. First, Transport for London does not run the track and the trains. The trains are run as part of a franchise by Arriva. Secondly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that what we have outlined today—more services and longer trains on the south-eastern line—is a lot better than what TfL offered in its business plan. My concern is to deliver a better service for his constituents rather than unnecessary political shuffling.

Liz McInnes: What talks has the Secretary of State had with the Northern Powerhouse Minister about the upgrading of the trans-Pennine route, and will he consider linking up the great cities of Liverpool and Newcastle, as well as Leeds, York and Manchester?

Chris Grayling: Absolutely. The key point about the trans-Pennine upgrade is that we have already electrified it from Manchester to Liverpool. That bit of the project has been done. The next bit is from Manchester to Leeds to York. I have said that that will be a £3 million programme. It is the next big rail investment project. I am expecting Network Rail’s detailed proposals shortly. It will be the next big project we go ahead with and will make a big difference to the north.

Peter Heaton-Jones: I warmly welcome the announcement today of a consultation on the great western franchise and the improvements it will bring to passenger services in Devon and beyond, but may I seek my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that there will be a focus in that process on the one rail service that serves my constituency—that between Exeter and Barnstaple? It is not just a quaint tourist line used in August; it is a vital part of north Devon’s economic infrastructure.

Chris Grayling: It certainly is, and I do not want that service to be diminished in any way. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that one of the routes on which we intend to start passenger services again—and we are actively engaged in that work—is the line from Okehampton to Exeter. I think that has the potential to ease congestion at Exeter, and to provide a better commuter route.

Vernon Coaker: Will the Secretary of State tell us why he is not electrifying the midland main line even though every single business organisation, Member of Parliament and local council is telling him that that is what he should do? Why is he ignoring the wishes of local people and local representatives, saying that he knows best, and simply offering them a “joint team approach”, whatever that is?

Chris Grayling: The answer to that is very simple. Over the next four years, we will deliver the biggest upgrades to the midland main line since the 1870s. We are straightening tracks to improve line speeds, and resignalling in places such as Derby. The programme will deliver faster journey times—it will take 15 to 20 minutes off the journey to Sheffield—and we will deliver brand-new trains on that route in the early 2020s. I could then go further and electrify the route all the way to Sheffield, but all that I would be doing is delaying the arrival of new trains and saving one minute on the journey time to Sheffield, at a cost of £1 billion. I think that we should deliver what passengers want—better journeys, faster journeys and new trains—more quickly, and that is what we are going to do.

Huw Merriman: On my own behalf and that of my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), I thank the Secretary of State—who has visited our area and seen the potential there—for the proposals on page 31 of the south-eastern rail franchise stakeholder briefing document, which will deliver faster trains from Hastings with fewer station stops, and, crucially, require any bidder for the franchise to pay attention to the potential for high-speed rail to be extended to Hastings, Rye and Bexhill. Does he agree that that will unlock regeneration in our constituencies?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We get caught up in the biggest projects, but sometimes the smaller ones—even a bit of track realignment in places—can make the biggest difference. I hope to do big things, such as the trans-Pennine upgrade, but also smaller things at, for instance, Ashford, where we are trying to improve the situation for passengers.

John Woodcock: As the Secretary of State will know, the Cumbria coastline and the Furness line are giving a dire performance at the moment. It is disappointing that Cumbria was not mentioned in the strategy. Will he ask the Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), to meet us to discuss what can be done about the 50-year-old locomotives that are breaking down and annoying residents, the terrible state of the rolling stock, and the awful standard of reliability? There is an urgent need to fix all that, otherwise there will be significant damage to the economy.

Chris Grayling: I am delighted to be able to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are scrapping all those trains on that route and getting new ones. We are also introducing better services, including Sunday services. All that is being rolled out now. We have a partnership with the Labour leaderships in the councils of the north and Transport for the North, and we have been working side by side to shape the new franchise and the replacements for the rail fleets, for which the Government are paying. Those trains are on order, and the first new trains are now entering service in the northern networks and the trans-Pennine network. Every single train in the north of England on every single route is being replaced—either completely refurbished as new, or scrapped. The old Pacer trains on the Cumbrian coastline, which should have been scrapped years ago and were not under Labour, are being scrapped by us now.

Lucy Frazer: I noted, both in the rail strategy—which I welcome—and in the Secretary of State’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), a reference to improvement works at Ely North junction. Can the Secretary of State assure me that when those works—which will benefit the entire region and take freight off the road—are completed, my constituents in Queen Adelaide will not be disadvantaged?

Chris Grayling: Our aim is always to minimise the impact of improvement works as they are happening, and also their consequences. I assure my hon. Friend that we will work with her and her constituents to ensure that this is a beneficial investment for her part of the world, and that where it has any impacts, we will minimise them as far as is possible.

Kate Green: I noted what the Secretary of State said about compensation for passengers when things go wrong. He is aware, I know, of the appalling service that Northern Rail is currently providing in my constituency. Could a more flexible compensation system be introduced? Delay Repay does not capture the full experience that my constituents are having.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend the Rail Minister and I are working to create a passenger ombudsman, because we recognise that there are circumstances in which a conventional repayment system does not reflect the problems that someone has experienced, and that will happen shortly.

Kelly Tolhurst: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement, and particularly for what he said about the south-eastern franchise. It is necessary because of the significant amount of house building that will take place in north Kent over the next 20 years, and because there will be extra capacity and more seats for my constituents, who have been complaining about the service for a long time. Are there any further plans to increase capacity on the wonderful High Speed 1 network? My constituents who want to use that service often complain about the lack of seats and the inadequate number of trains available.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The high-speed trains to St Pancras are pretty full at peak times. We have talked to the bidders about that, and I know that they are thinking about how best to tackle the capacity challenge. We will see what happens when the bids come through, but I know that the issue is on everyone’s radar.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: In 2014, the last Tory Prime Minister described electrification of the great western main line across south Wales as ”transformational for communities” and “huge”. Given that the Government have now cancelled electrification from Cardiff to Swansea, why should my constituents, or anyone else, believe Tory promises on rail again?

Chris Grayling: The answer is that we are delivering much faster connections to south Wales. The huge investment in the great western main line, not just in electrification but in improving the track and the signalling,  will make a transformational difference to the south Wales economy. We are spending money to ensure that the new intercity express trains can go west of Swansea, and brand-new intercity express trains are already travelling from Swansea and delivering better conditions for passengers. If we erect overhead cables between Cardiff and Swansea now, it will cost several hundred million pounds and deliver no extra benefits to passengers—not even a minute off the journey time—which is why that does not make any sense.

Diana R. Johnson: I was disappointed that the Secretary of State did not attend the debate on transport in the north on 6 November. He has talked about his priorities for transforming services in this country. Which does he think will happen first, Crossrail for the north between Liverpool and Hull or Crossrail mark 2 for London, between Surrey and Hertfordshire?

Chris Grayling: Those two projects will happen in lockstep. They are both important, they are both going to happen, and we are going to steer them in parallel.

Chris Bryant: The journey from Paddington to Cardiff is regularly a version of hell. Trains are frequently cancelled, and then everyone has to pile on to the next train, often an hour later. My constituents tell me that it is often announced that a train will not set off for another 20 minutes because it is too overloaded to be safe. At the weekends, instead of putting on extra trains after international matches, the company puts on fewer trains, which means that hundreds of people are standing for four hours. That is simply unfair and wrong. When will the Secretary of State put it right?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to see the arrival of the new Hitachi intercity express trains, which will have more seats and more capacity. They will replace trains that are well out of date, and will provide a faster, better service for passengers.

Ian Lucas: I thank the Secretary of State for helping to secure extra money for north Wales in the Budget, but that was for the development of a business case for the Wrexham-Bidston line, which is merely a taster. Will he please help to deliver the main course of the north Wales growth deal, which will unlock growth in one of the most effective and forward-looking areas of the national economy?

Chris Grayling: I know that the hon. Gentleman is after not just the hors d’oeuvre but a second course. That second course will probably be the Crewe hub, on which we are working carefully at the moment, but I thought that he at least deserved an appetiser. I buy the argument that the present situation as trains head north from Wrexham is not right, and I am therefore delighted that the Chancellor agreed to fund the development work for that scheme.

Grahame Morris: I give the Transport Secretary credit for acknowledging the failure on at least two occasions of the private franchise running the  east coast main line. My recollection is that when it was operated by the UK state-owned Directly Operated Railways it generated more than £100 million in profit for the Treasury, which could be used for vital public services. What assessment has he made of the additional costs of the private-public sector partnership, and would it not be better to use the profits to extend the Tyne and Wear Metro into Easington rather than swelling the coffers of privately operated train companies, often German, Dutch and Spanish Government-owned?

Chris Grayling: There is a curious conundrum in this. We hear so much uncertainty from Labour about what they think about Brexit: they seem to want to stay in the single market and continue to operate in the traditional way, but they do not want to work with train companies from other countries. That is a bit illogical.
I am delighted that we as a Government are finally investing—in a way that the hon. Gentleman’s party did not—in rail in the north-east. The investment in trains on the Metro and the plans to extend it are the right things to do to help his constituency and the economy of the north-east, and I am very proud to be able to deliver them. It is also worth saying that the private sector franchise on the east coast main line has been contributing more to the Treasury than the public sector one did.

Paula Sherriff: I wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 October and eagerly await his response. My constituents are, frankly, fed up with chronically overcrowded and unreliable trains and substandard services. What action is being taken to monitor the performance delivered by the train operating companies?

Chris Grayling: The good thing from the hon. Lady’s point of view is that, although she is right that her constituency has old, overcrowded trains that are not long enough, we are replacing them with new longer trains. That will make a transformational difference to the travelling experience of her constituents and others right across the north.

Gavin Shuker: I have read the Secretary of State’s document published today and was perplexed that there is no reference to mutual operators. I can only assume that that is an oversight, given that they provide democratic control, work within the existing framework he has laid out in this document, and reinvest their profits for the value of all passengers. Given that, will he or his Rail Minister commit to a short meeting to talk about the barriers faced by mutual operators?

Chris Grayling: I can only say that I will be very happy to see an employee-owned bid come forward. There is no barrier to that happening at all. I will be very happy to see a partnership between employees and investors come forward, and if there are artificial barriers to that happening, I am happy to see whether we can remove them.

Ben Lake: Every line that could be reopened, as outlined in the Secretary of State’s strategic rail vision, appears to be in England. The Aberystwyth to Carmarthen line was closed under the Beeching cuts, and reopening it not only enjoys considerable support  in Ceredigion but could serve to significantly boost the economy of west Wales. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and the campaign group to discuss ways of adding that line to his map of lines that could be reopened?

Chris Grayling: We have a clear responsibility for Welsh infrastructure, and I want it to improve in a way that provides extra services for passengers and better routes, hence the Wrexham to Bidston investment that I expect us to make. The Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, will be very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and the campaign group about that route; I am aware of it, and was, in fact, talking about it the other day to people in Wales. I am well aware that people want that project to be opened, but I should also make it clear that, as we invest in reopening routes, they have to either unlock economic opportunity or housing opportunity or break up a real point of congestion. We cannot simply recreate old routes that no longer have a commercial purpose.

Jo Platt: The Secretary of State will be aware from my communications of the importance of rail connectivity in my constituency of Leigh, which is the fifth largest town in the country without a railway station. Following the publication of his report today, the industrial strategy and the social mobility reports, which all highlight the importance of connectivity for social and economic purposes, will he confirm that my constituency will be, or has been, considered for the reversal of the Beeching cuts?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady makes a good point, and of course I want significant towns to be well served by the railways. I know she is meeting my hon. Friend the Rail Minister a little later this afternoon, and we will listen very carefully to what she says.

Darren Jones: My constituency is on the brink of daily gridlock due to welcome but significant developments in housing and travel-to-work routes that are not fit for purpose, so I welcome the reference to the Portishead line and the Henbury line in this strategy, but the solution is the Henbury loop line. Will the Secretary of State commit  in his conversations with the Conservative metro Mayor for the west of England to reiterating the advice given by his Department to my predecessor—that an independent business case study should be funded for delivery of the Henbury loop line?

Chris Grayling: I spoke to the metro Mayor this morning about this and the investments we need, and also about North Filton railway station. He clearly has a strong agenda to take forward investment in the suburban service around Bristol. I have also been to the port and looked at the point on the putative Henbury loop that would be the issue. We need to resolve that, and I absolutely understand the need to get those services working well.

Eleanor Laing: The prize for patience and perseverance goes to Luke Pollard.

Luke Pollard: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Fragmentation of the great western franchise risks locking in a poor deal for rail for the far south-west, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to match the commitment given by the shadow Secretary of State for Transport to fund the peninsula rail taskforce recommendations for faster journeys and a more resilient railway, and to ensure that we can unlock the investment we need for Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall?

Chris Grayling: I reiterate my point that this is a consultation, and I want views from all sides. We will make a change only if it is the right thing to do. We are not going to create a little fringe franchise just for Devon and Cornwall, cutting them off. If we make a change, it will be to have much more of a south-western franchise serving the region, providing good links locally.
The peninsula rail taskforce’s top recommendation was that we need to deal with the issue of the cliffs at Dawlish. The work on developing the solution to that is happening now, and that is critical to making sure that the route is resilient. That is my No. 1 rail priority for the south-west, and I give an absolute guarantee to the House that, as long as I am Transport Secretary and beyond, my party is committed to delivering a solution to prevent the real risk that those cliffs represent.

YEMEN

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Andrew Mitchell: I seek leave to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely Britain’s engagement with Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Today we are witnessing an almighty catastrophe of Biblical proportions unfolding in Yemen, in which Britain is dangerously complicit. Britain is respected throughout the world for bringing hope and relief to those caught up in humanitarian misery, but today in Yemen, which I visited earlier this year, we are in danger of earning a reputation for precisely the reverse, for the UK is part of the coalition that is imposing a blockade by land, sea and air on 27 million Yemenis. In recent weeks, fuel prices have risen by up to 160%, and rice and basic foods by nearly 70%. Fuel for generators, which are essential for hospitals and water-pumping stations, will run out shortly.
Yesterday’s announcement by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while arguably slowing the trajectory, will not in any way curtail this escalating disaster. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last week that, unless the blockade is lifted, famine throughout Yemen is a very real threat, including on the southern borders of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Moreover, wilfully impeding humanitarian access may constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.
It is increasingly clear that this blockade imposed on Yemen constitutes the collective and illegal punishment of an entire population. If you grant this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the House will see clearly that current policy will result in a huge strategic failure both for Saudi Arabia and, by extension, for the UK. It  is important that the voice of this House is heard urgently, along with the Prime Minister’s on her current visit to the Gulf.
Above all, it is a moral failure that confronts us. Famine is a phenomenon that we were close to eradicating from the human condition. The last 20 years has seen only two famines throughout the world. When I was responsible in 2011 for co-ordinating the UK’s efforts to address one of those famines, in Somalia, I saw for myself emaciated children and starving mothers. Today in Yemen we are witnessing a totally preventable mass humanitarian catastrophe, the likes of which we have not seen in decades.

Eleanor Laing: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely the current situation in Yemen. On behalf of Mr Speaker, I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Gentleman. Mr Speaker is satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: The motion is clearly—[Interruption.] Order. I reassure Members that I do not have to count them. No one indicated dissent and the proposal is clearly supported as required by the Standing Order.
Application agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: The debate will be held tomorrow, Thursday 30 November, as the first item of public business. It will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that this House has considered the specific matter set out in the right hon. Gentleman’s application, namely that this House has considered the current situation in Yemen.

FOOD INSECURITY

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Emma Lewell-Buck: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government to monitor and report on food insecurity; to make provision for official statistics on food insecurity; and for connected purposes.
People are going hungry, and with each passing day of this terrible excuse for a Government, more and more are falling into poverty with little chance of escape. There are no second chances in Britain today. Food poverty is a clear consequence of this Government’s ideological assault on the social safety net and the people who rely on it, and of their ongoing inaction on poverty pay.
Each time hunger is raised in this Chamber, I have heard Secretaries of State and Ministers denigrate statistics from charities, food banks and colleagues, claiming that the figures are not robust enough, or that the information is not reliable enough to inform Government policy. Denying the accuracy of the data or simply turning a blind eye allows Conservative Members to pretend that the problem does not exist.
Today, with this Bill, I am giving the Government an opportunity to rectify this data gap and to robustly measure the levels of hunger in the UK, because we all know that what gets measured gets done. The problem of food insecurity in the UK is increasing. While the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are taking steps to implement measurement, this Government doggedly persist in refusing calls from the Food Foundation, Sustain, Oxfam, myself and a host of others to routinely and robustly measure levels of food insecurity. United Nations estimates from 2014 suggest that as many as 8 million households in the UK are food insecure. That is 8 million households who cannot afford to eat, or who are worrying about where their next meal will come from. But that estimate is based on a small survey of around 1,000 people, which is not nearly good enough to properly inform policy.
In 2016, when the Food Standards Agency surveyed households about food insecurity as part of the “Food and You” survey, it found that 21% of households in England, Wales and Northern Ireland were moderately to severely food insecure. That one-off measurement gives a snapshot of the problem, but does not allow for an analysis of long-term trends or the ability to track the impact of policy changes.
This month, the Office for National Statistics released data showing that due to the drop in the value of sterling as a result of Brexit uncertainties, food inflation had risen more than 4% over the past year. We need up-to-date information on the impact that that is having on UK families’ ability to afford enough healthy food, because being food insecure has lasting health impacts. We already know that the UK is facing a double burden of food insecurity and obesity, which is no surprise given the types of meals that a food insecure family can afford. More worryingly, in the last financial year, a count of hospital admissions in England revealed that nearly 8,000 adults and more than 300 children were admitted as a result of malnutrition. Those figures  should shame any Government, but for a Government in one of the richest countries in the world, they are simply unforgivable.
The latest data provided by the Trussell Trust shows that just over 1 million three-day emergency food supplies were given to people in crisis over the past year, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, as the Trussell Trust collects data only from its own food banks. Independent research has found that there are at least 1,000 food banks in operation. There are also the “hidden hungry”, who will not go to a food bank and rely on the kindness of their friends, family and neighbours, or, worse still, go hungry so as not to face the shame of having to ask for food.
The desperate state of this problem is something that I and my colleagues see every day in our constituencies. I recall a woman who called my constituency office in desperate need of help after having problems with her benefits. She had no money for gas or electricity, and no food to feed herself and her four children under the age of 10. She was alone and unable to afford to get to the nearest food bank. In the end, our local volunteers in Shields managed to get food to her. The fact that faith groups and charities have had to fill a gap left by the state reveals a massive dereliction of duty by the Government. As a result, food banks are now a permanent part of our welfare state.
According to United Nations data on food insecurity in the UK, as many as 17 times the number of people using Trussell Trust food banks are food insecure. Also, food bank use is an indication of last resort, when families are at imminent risk of going hungry. Recurring or moderate food insecurity is not captured by measuring food bank use. We also know that measuring the proportion of income spent on food is not an adequate measure of food insecurity. New evidence from Canada shows that food insecure households will continue to spend the same proportion of their income on food when their income falls, and that they then experience increasingly severe food insecurity. In addition, these measures do not inform us about food affordability, the socio-emotional issues faced by people who are food insecure, the use of survival strategies, or people’s inability to meet needs. These issues can be captured only by measuring a household’s experience of food insecurity.
Capturing and measuring the experience of food insecurity is easier than we all think. Many survey tools have been validated and are being used in countries around the world. The United States Department of Agriculture’s food insecurity module includes questions that assess both household and child food insecurity. The method involves asking a series of questions about people’s experiences of accessing a sufficient quality and quantity of food. The results rank a household’s food insecurity on a scale from mild to severe. The Bill proposes that such questions should be inserted into representative UK-wide household surveys that the Government already conduct.
What I propose is very simple. Adding the food insecurity module to an existing survey, such as the living costs and foods survey, could be cost-neutral if some less important questions were removed. For example, the survey currently asks households about the food they grow at home. We need new questions for new times.
This straightforward Bill proses introducing an existing measure into an existing survey, which could be done cost neutrally. As we negotiate new trading arrangements  with Europe and beyond, as global populations rise, as conflicts spread and as more extreme weather affects food supplies globally and domestically, food security will become an even more important issue. In order to meet the challenges of the future and the urgency now, the need to measure food insecurity here in the UK is more important than ever.
As I present this Bill, there will be a mother in my constituency wondering how she is going to feed herself and her toddler today. There will be schoolchildren struggling to focus because their stomachs are rumbling, parents who have yet again skipped breakfast to ensure that their children did not have to, families searching their cupboards for what is left, and elderly people who are unable to access fresh food. But that is not just happening in my constituency; the situation is the same in constituencies and homes right across the UK. As I have outlined, implementing the measurement is not an insurmountable or costly challenge, and the Government owe it to every man, woman and child who woke up hungry this morning and will go to bed hungry tonight, in one of the richest countries in the world, to do so. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Frank Field, Kate Green, Jim Shannon, Liam Byrne, Kerry McCarthy, Stephen Timms, Dan Jarvis, Alison Thewliss, Layla Moran, Mr Jim Cunningham and Grahame Morris present the Bill.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 136).

OPPOSITION DAY - [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

STATE PENSION AGE: WOMEN

Ian Blackford: I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and everybody else in the Chamber a happy St Andrew’s day for tomorrow? With your forbearance, I will just remark that today is the 50th anniversary of the mighty Hibernian football club defeating Napoli—with Dino Zoff in goal—5-0 at Easter Road, ensuring that they went on to the next stage of European football.
I am delighted to open the debate and to move the SNP’s Opposition day motion calling for mitigation for women born in the 1950s. We are here in support of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign and its efforts to secure fairness for women affected by the acceleration in their retirement age. I am saddened that we are having yet another debate on this issue, but the fundamental fact is that the Government should have taken action to mitigate the increase in women’s pensionable age. There must be action. The 3.8 million affected women have waited simply far too long for effective mitigation.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that we both called for action well over two years ago when he and I were our parties’ respective pensions spokespeople. Does he share my deep frustration that we have still had absolutely nothing?

Ian Blackford: I welcome that intervention, and I certainly look back fondly on the period when he and I were holding the Government to account. When the evidence is before us that the women did not get appropriate notice and that the acceleration is happening so quickly, it is an absolute outrage that we have had nothing from this Government.

Lucy Frazer: This is an important debate on an important issue—I also attended the debate in Westminster Hall last week—but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is wrong to say that the Government have taken no action? In 2011, they ensured that no one waited for an extended period beyond 18 months.

Ian Blackford: I have heard about spinning, but let me deal with the facts. The hon. and learned Lady refers to the fact that the Government brought in the Pensions Act 2011, but that increased the acceleration. To say that the Government have mitigated the situation is a distortion of reality, and Government Members should stop spinning and tell the 3.8 million affected women the truth: the pensionable age is increasing by three months per calendar month. That is the reality.  The Government should be utterly ashamed of trying to argue that they have mitigated things, which demonstrates that some Conservative Members simply do not get what is going on.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The tragedy is that it falls to us to speak for the individuals who have suffered. I have a constituent in Dolgellau who was born 24 hours too late and now has to work for an extra two years and three months. The change has led to individual tragedies.

Ian Blackford: I am grateful for that intervention; I cannot really add much to what the hon. Lady says, because she demonstrates the ridiculous nature of the situation and why the Government must listen.

Tim Loughton: rose—

Ian Blackford: I will take one more intervention, but then I must make some progress.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows that I support this cause. Although I cannot be here for the rest of the debate due to its late start, if there is a vote, I will certainly support this innocuous motion. The measures taken in 2011 actually benefited men just as much as women, but this is very much a women-focused injustice. Some 33% of men approaching retirement expect to rely on just a state pension, but the percentage for women is as much as 53%, which is why this issue is so important to them and to all of us.

Ian Blackford: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. He has been resolute on this matter over the past couple of years, and I know that the women are grateful for his support; I hope that he will be back for the vote later on. I am glad that he referred to the motion in front of us, because we had a choice of all sorts of things to lay before the House today, but the motion is laid in such a way—simply calling on the Government to put mitigation in place—that all the Members of Parliament who have shown support for the WASPI women can support it. Now is our only chance to show that we can stand up and do something for those women.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ian Blackford: I know that many Members want to speak, so I will make some progress and let people in later.
This is about women who have paid national insurance in anticipation of receiving a pension and have been hit with the bombshell that their pension was being deferred—in some cases by up to six years—with only 15 months’ written notice. Members should dwell on that. They were looking forward to retirement, but they received a letter telling them that they were going to get as little as 15 months’ notice of an increase in their pension age. Can anybody on the Government Benches defend that? Will anybody stand up and tell the House and the public that giving someone 15 months’ written notice of an increase in their pension age is acceptable? Is anyone prepared to do that? If so, I will happily give way.

James Cartlidge: rose—

Ah!

James Cartlidge: We recognise people’s concerns about the notice, but to rectify the situation requires public funds. In a previous debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that his party’s position was to pay for that from the surplus in the national insurance fund. Is that still his party’s policy?

Ian Blackford: Well, there we are. Given the opportunity to defend the indefensible, we again get spin. Let me make things absolutely crystal clear. The national insurance fund is sitting at a surplus in the region of £30 billion, and that surplus has been generated by the women who have paid national insurance. All that we have asked for is that the women be given what they are entitled to receive. A pension should be seen as a right, but the Government have changed the terms and conditions of that right without consulting those who have paid in for a pension. As many of the campaigners have said, “We paid in, you pay out.”
This campaign is at the heart of SNP policy. We have long fought for the Government to rectify the shambles and give the WASPI women the pensions they rightfully deserve. I speak on behalf of SNP Members when I say that we will never rest until justice is delivered for the women affected. The Government have failed time and time again to address the injustices of a lack of notice for the acceleration of the state pension age. There is an opportunity today for the Government to admit that effective notice was not given of an increase in pensionable age. The process of increasing pensionable age must be slowed down.

Simon Hoare: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with his customary passion on this issue, which he says is at the heart of Scottish National party thinking. I am not an expert on devolved powers, but my understanding from reading the legislation is that the Scottish Government have the powers to rectify this issue if they so wish. He chastises the Treasury Bench for a lack of action, but we have seen no action from Holyrood that could give a lead to the Government.

Ian Blackford: There we have it. Does anybody here think the Scottish Government have power to introduce pensions? [Hon. Members: “No!”] I will tell the House why: it is because we do not have the powers. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped creating the impression that we have that power.
Let me be absolutely crystal clear. Power over pensions is reserved to Westminster. There is a bit of a clue, because pensions are paid out of national insurance. I would love the Scottish Government to have control over national insurance. Let me make it clear that if we had control over pensions in Scotland, we would make sure that the WASPI women in Scotland got what is rightfully theirs.

Simon Hoare: The Scotland Act 2016 does not preclude the right hon. Gentleman—

Mhairi Black: Pensions are reserved.

Simon Hoare: I agree entirely that pensions are reserved, but discretionary payments could be made by the Scottish Government. Why have they not done so?

Ian Blackford: There is a very simply answer. I have respect for the hon. Gentleman, as he knows, and he should go back and read the 2016 Act, because it is crystal clear that we cannot introduce new benefits, nor can we introduce payments based on age. The fundamental point that needs to be made is that we are talking about the state pension in the United Kingdom, which is a reserved matter. It ill behoves any Conservative Member to try to create the impression that the people of Scotland and elsewhere have powers that we do not have. If Conservative Members want the Scottish Government to have the powers to fix this, then give us the powers. Give us control over pensions and we will fix it tomorrow.

Ross Thomson: The right hon. Gentleman has asked us to tell him what powers the Scottish Government have to help in this situation. Well, under section 28 of the Scotland Act they can create a new benefit, and they can make that argument on the basis of, but not because of, old age—the Department for Work and Pensions has accepted that argument. Further, section 26 allows the Scottish Government to make short-term payments to people who need them,
“to avoid a risk to the well-being of an individual.”
The Scottish Government have the powers. They choose not to use them. [Interruption.]

Ian Blackford: The hon. Gentleman should—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. I want to hear the right hon. Gentleman. I was about to try to quieten down the House in order that I might be able to hear him, but I realise that most of the noise is coming from those behind him. He is making an important speech, and those behind him are trying to support him, but they are being a bit noisy about it.

Ian Blackford: The simple fact is that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government do not have the ability to introduce new benefits based on age. What is really important, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) should reflect on this, is that this is a failure of UK Government policy. Nobody can get away from that. Are the Conservatives in Scotland really saying that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government should again clear up the mess left by this Conservative Government? The Scottish Government have already spent £400 million mitigating the worst effects of Tory austerity.
That is the reality—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) chuntering. Maybe he could answer this question. Was he one of those who signed the WASPI pledge? Did he say to his voters that he would stand up for the WASPI women? If he is true to his word, he has to come through the Lobby with us this afternoon, or his words will be shown to be meaningless and a fraud on the people of his constituency.

Bob Seely: I am concerned that the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to listen to Government Front Benchers. I am sympathetic to the WASPI women, of whom there are nearly 10,000 on the Isle of Wight, but the reality is that the he can do something about it, but he will not. He is not taking interventions because he would rather score political points than fix this problem.

Ian Blackford: That is pathetic, absolutely pathetic, because it demonstrates well and truly that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. I have listened to Government Front Benchers in debate after debate in which they have been given the opportunity to do something about this. We introduced costed proposals in the last Parliament. The Minister, like countless Ministers before him, wants to sit on his hands. He wants this issue to go away, and I can tell him that this issue is not going away.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Ian Blackford: I will make progress before giving way again.
The Government have an opportunity today to do something about it. I remind the House that 250 Members of Parliament have presented petitions on behalf of WASPI women. That is 250 Members of Parliament who I expect to go through the Aye Lobby tonight. There is no point signing a petition unless they are prepared to go through the Lobby, otherwise they have duped the WASPI women. I trust that no Member would wish to do that.
Our motion is a simple one. It calls for mitigation. It is written in a way that allows all Members of Parliament to recognise the injustice that women born in the 1950s are facing, and it allows the Government to bring forward proposals. Let me state at the beginning of this debate that if parliamentary democracy means anything, the House must divide on this motion. The Government must either support mitigation, which we are calling on them to do, or they must have the guts to vote against it.
Now is the time for Members on both sides of the House to signal that we need to put mitigation in place. Let us stand up today for 1950s women, because I believe parliamentary arithmetic is on our side.

Jim Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: I will give way one more time.

Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He and I have been involved in a lot of debates. I think the Government can find this money. It is no good their trying to blame the Scottish Parliament. This is a UK issue, full stop. I assure him that I will be backing him in the Lobby today.

Ian Blackford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hoped he would be backing me, and he has been resolute on this issue over a long period of time. He is absolutely right; we can find money on the magic money tree for Northern Ireland and, as I said in the Budget debate only last week, we found £70 billion for quantitative easing last year. A £70 billion cheque was written for the Bank of England to put into the financial markets, so do not tell us that the Government cannot find the money. Of course, the answer to the question is that the money is there because the national insurance fund is sitting on a surplus.

James Cartlidge: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: I must make some progress. I will not take interventions for a while.
The moment has never been so opportune for Members on both sides of the House to come together to do the right thing and to call for this long-standing error to be corrected. Conservative Members made a pledge to the WASPI women as recently as June 2017. Scottish Tory Members—I will not name them, but they know who they are—signed the WASPI pledge before the general election and claimed to be prepared to act against party orders on the issue. There has been a deafening silence from them on this matter since the election, and the heckling has gone.
The House might be interested to know that, in the constituencies represented by Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament, a total of 84,000 women are affected by this Government’s legislative changes. I ask this question of the Scottish Tories, in a friendly spirit, particularly to those who supported the WASPI women during the campaign: will they have the courage to join us in the Lobby this afternoon, or will they turn their backs on the 84,000 WASPI women in their own constituencies?
I flag up to them page 62 of the Scottish Conservative manifesto, which states:
“We will also ensure that the state pension age reflects increases in life expectancy, while protecting each generation fairly.”
So, today, Scots Tories, do the right thing.

Colin Clark: The nub of the matter is that people are living longer and contributions were calculated on the basis of people not living so long. Although I sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, the debt burden would be increased on our children and grandchildren, and that is grossly unfair.

Ian Blackford: I am stunned. [Interruption.] I am speechless, because we should put that out in a leaflet. We are not talking about tea and sympathy; we are talking about WASPI women having to rely on benefits, and they are going to get nothing from the hon. Gentleman—that is crystal clear. It is obvious where he stands on this issue.
Today, these Tories should deliver the generational fairness they promised in their manifesto. I sincerely welcome the backing of some 37 Conservative MPs who expressed support for WASPI women during the general election—37 Tory MPs signed the pledge. We will be watching this afternoon, as will the WASPI women, and these MPs will be expected to do what they promised in the election campaign and stand up for the WASPI women. That support stretches from the Tory Back Benches across to the Benches of the Democratic Unionist party—to our friends from the DUP. Page 9 of the DUP manifesto contained a pledge to protect pensions, with the announcement that the DUP would:
“Support an end to the unfair treatment of women pensioners”.
I call on DUP Members to deliver on their pledges made to the WASPI women.

Sammy Wilson: I am disappointed at the tone that has been set in this debate. Despite the fact that we have a motion that could command widespread support, the tone of the debate has not been as I expected. Let me make something clear: we made a manifesto pledge on this issue, and the reason why I am here as my party’s spokesman is that we do support this and we will go through the Lobby on it. However, the WASPI women would be better served if we had a  debate that was not divisive and not about point scoring, because there is no party—whether Labour, the Liberals or the Conservatives—that has not caused some of this problem.

Ian Blackford: I am grateful that DUP Members will be going through the Lobby, but let me point out that we are trying to set out the facts of the arguments in this House. These women have for too long been let down by politicians, so let us use the opportunity we have today to give them the result they deserve. Thanks to freedom of information requests, we learnt that the Department for Work and Pensions only began writing to women born between April 1950 and April 1955 in April 2009, and did not complete the process until February 2012. So it was writing to women to inform them about changes in legislation that go back to 1995 but it did not start the formal notification period for 14 years. Taking 14 years to begin informing women that a pension they had paid into was being deferred is quite something. Can we imagine the outcry if a private pension provider was behaving in such a way? There would be an outcry in this House and, no doubt, legal action. When we consider that entitlement to a state pension is earned through national insurance contributions, where many women have made contributions over 40 years, this is stunning.
A woman born on 6 April 1953 who, under the previous legislation, would have retired on 6 April 2013 would have received a letter from the DWP in January 2012 with the bombshell that she would not be retiring then—she would be retiring in July 2016. That is three years and three months later than she might have expected, and this is with 15 months’ notice. That is what Conservative Members have been defending, and it is no wonder the WASPI women are insulted. We are talking about 15 months’ notice before what they thought was a contract they had with the Government was simply to be ripped up.
A pensions White Paper published in December 1993 stated:
“In developing its proposals for implementing the change the Government has paid particular attention to the need to give people enough time to plan ahead and to phase the change in gradually”.
Not much there that I would disagree with, but when you accept the need for people to plan ahead, you need to write to them and tell them.

Chris Elmore: I am secretary of the all-party group on state pension inequality for women, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. A serious point for WASPI women is the number of women in their 60s who did not receive a letter. Their pensions were deferred until they were 63, even though they should have received them at 60, but they were not told at the time of those deferments that they should have received them three years earlier. This is another scandal about how the DWP has not been honest in those letters. Does he agree that that is something else the Government should be looking to address?

Ian Blackford: Again, I am grateful for that intervention, and the hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says. This is yet another clear example of why there is absolutely no excuse for not collectively taking action today. We have  a choice: we can recognise the injustices that the women have faced or we can sit on our hands and do nothing. This is about morality. It is about doing the right thing. The Minister can look up to the skies, but it is not going to remove the problem for him. I do not want to wait until the end of the debate and then get another 10 minutes of ignoring the reality of what is going on. We have had that for too long and it has to stop—it has to stop today.
The intent was there in the 1993 White Paper, but it was 2009 before any formal letters went out. Then we have the issue of phasing this in gradually. What we are dealing with is an increase in a woman’s pensionable age by three months for each calendar month that passes. It is simply scandalous that a woman’s pensionable age is increasing so rapidly. It is indefensible and it is not within the spirit outlined in the Government’s White Paper in 1993.
In October 2002, while giving evidence to a Select Committee, the DWP suggested that the role of the state was
“to provide clear and accurate information about what pensions will provide so that people will understand how much they can expect at retirement before it’s too late to do something about it.”
How does “before it’s too late to do something about it” equate with 15 months’ notice? How can the Minister, and how can anyone who is not going to support our motion today, support that lack of notice? It has gone quiet now, has it not?

James Cartlidge: The right hon. Gentleman has to find a way to pay for this and he did say that he would still use the national insurance fund. Ruth Kelly, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said the following in 2003:
“The national insurance fund provides security for those contributory benefits. It is ring-fenced and cannot be used for other Government expenditure.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 231WH.]

Ian Blackford: The hon. Gentleman is going to have to do better. Of course this is ring-fenced—it is for pensions. Pay it out! That is what the Government are being asked to do. As I was saying, no formal communication took place until 2009 and the task was not completed until 2012. The DWP has to take responsibility for this failure to communicate and, crucially, for the lack of time that women have had to prepare for an increase in their state pension age. Rather than recognising that women deserved to be communicated with directly, the DWP issued leaflets headlined “Equality in state pension age”. Can anybody in this Chamber remember them? No, I do not recall seeing them either. That is no surprise, as DWP-commissioned research in 2004 highlighted that only 2% of respondents mentioned that they had been notified of changes to their pension age via a leaflet. That is the responsibility that the Government took to inform people. Frankly, it is an insult that the Government at the time thought that changes that affect a woman’s retirement age could be delivered with a leaflet. That was an abdication of responsibility and we have to take responsibility for that. We should all receive an annual statement from the DWP on our expected entitlement, just as we do from private pension providers.

Philippa Whitford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Blackford: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I have to move on because of the time.
The failure to communicate was highlighted by a 2004 DWP report called “Public awareness of State Pension age equalisation”, which stated that only 43%—less than half—of all women affected by the increase in state pensionable age were aware of the impact on them. If the Government accept that women were not informed in a timely manner and therefore did not have time to react, why do they not accept their responsibilities? I am watching the Minister and he is looking away. He is not interested because he simply does not want to hear the facts. When will he accept his responsibility for the WASPI women and engage in a constructive manner?
The Government sent out 17.8 million letters on automatic state pension forecasts to men and women between May 2003 and November 2006 but—wait for it—the letters did not contain any information about state pension age. You simply could not make this up. What they did say was:
“If you want to know more about the changes to State Pension age, please see Pensions for women—Your guide… See page 10 for details about how you can get a copy of this guide.”
That, Minister, was no way to convey information. What should have been communicated was accurate, clear and transparent information. It was yet another failure to do that by the Minister’s Department—another massive failure to communicate from Government. What is he going to do about it? Nothing.
On 23 November 2016, in answer to a written question I submitted, the previous Pensions Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) stated:
“The Government has committed not to change the legislation relating to State Pension age for those people who are within 10 years of reaching it. This provides these individuals with the certainty they need to plan for the future…We recognise the importance of ensuring people are aware of any changes to their State Pension age”.
I welcomed that statement, but that recognition of the need to ensure that people are aware of changes was not afforded to 1950s women. If that statement from the previous Minister in 2016 is to have any credibility, the current Minister has to accept that the women affected were not given that courtesy and the Government need to correct that today.
I shall set the socioeconomic scene in which female pensioners find themselves under this Tory Government. Only 52% of women are adequately saving for retirement, compared with 60% of men. Female pensioners have a net weekly income that is approximately 85% of that of their male counterparts. More than two thirds of pensioners who are living in poverty are women. In August, the Institute for Fiscal Studies revealed that the increase in state pension age has left 1.1 million women £50 a week worse off. The IFS looked into the Government’s reform of the state pension, which was needed to account for a longer-living population, and found that the move to increase the eligibility age for women from 60 to 63 meant that income poverty rates were “pushed up substantially” from 15% to 20%. That is just as a result of the increase in the pension age from 60 to 63. Is the Minister going  to defend that? Are the Tory MPs from Scotland, bearing in mind their constituents, going to defend that? There has been an 8.7% rise in the chance of a woman aged 60 to 63 being in absolute poverty.
In my constituency of Ross, Skye and Lochaber, there are 5,400 women who were born in the 1950s and are affected by the changes to the state pension age in 1995, 2007 and 2011. Throughout Scotland, the figure is a staggering 347,000. New freedom-of-information figures have revealed that although almost 4,600 maladministration complaints relating to WASPI women have been received by officials at the DWP, only six investigations have been concluded. The process of dealing with the complaints has taken so long partly because the DWP has only three staff members dealing with the complaints. Three staff members dealing with 4,600 complaints—that is how serious the Government are taking this issue. The delays have been so long that the pensions ombudsman has now forced the independent case examiner to streamline the process. What a farce! That is an indication that the Government simply do not take their responsibilities to the WASPI women seriously—another let down from this Government for 1950s WASPI women. The Government have a commitment to the WASPI women and should stop playing fast and loose with their rights.
In a Westminster Hall debate on 5 July, the Minister talked about employment or retraining opportunities for 1950s women, stating—wait for it—that the Government had “extended apprenticeship opportunities”. There we have it: women who in some cases have worked for more than 40 years can go on apprenticeship schemes. Later in his speech, the Minister claimed:
“I realise it is not going down well”.—[Official Report, 5 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 143WH.]
It is little wonder, because 1950s women do not want apprenticeship schemes; they want their pensions.
Women born in the 1950s do not want to be pushed on to benefits, but that is what is happening. Between August 2013 and August 2017, the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance or universal credit across all ages fell by 42%. We welcome that, but the number of 60s-plus women claiming a benefit rose by 9,500—a 115% increase—while the number of women aged over 60 claiming employment and support allowance increased by 121,000. That is a massive increase of 413%—that is the reality of the sharp increase in the state pension age for women. The reality is that women are being denied their pension and this Government are forcing them on to benefits. The Minister has been ridiculed by, among others, the Financial Times, in which he was described as one in
“a line of pensions ministers with no interest in pensions”.
He certainly has no interest in women’s pensions. Today, the Minister must start to take an interest and do the right thing by putting mitigation in place.
It is nothing short of a disgrace that the Government found no remedy for the WASPI women in last week’s Budget. The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and extolled the virtues of spending billions on Brexit, but he failed to address the injustice faced by female pensioners. Transitional measures to mitigate the issue would cost significantly less than the UK Government’s £30 billion figure. Last year, independent research commissioned by the SNP showed that the cost would be £8 billion.  We can find billions for Brexit and billions for Trident, but not one penny for our pensioners, who are treated with contempt by the Government. It is bitterly disappointing that the Chancellor did not use the Budget to support the WASPI women. Once again, it falls to the SNP, by securing this debate, to be a voice for this campaign in the House and to press the UK Government to do the decent thing. They have got it wrong—admit it and fix it now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the Minister, I should warn Members who wish to take part in the debate that time is of course limited. In order that they might tailor their proposed speeches accordingly, there will be a time limit of three minutes.

Guy Opperman: Since world war two, we have seen a dramatic change in life expectancy. We are living longer, staying healthier, fighting diseases that previously would have killed us and leading a more active lifestyle, regardless of age. Faced with demographic pressures and increased life expectancy and costs, successive Governments have acted. We must be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenge that these changes create for us as a society.
Taking forward-looking action is critical to protecting the long-term sustainability of the state pension not only for today’s taxpayers, but for future generations. In July, the Government published their first review of the state pension age, which sets out a coherent strategy targeted at strengthening and sustaining the UK state pension system for many decades to come. It accepts the key recommendations of John Cridland’s independent review, which consulted a variety of people and organisations, including the Scottish National party—the bringing forward to 2037 to 2039 of the increase in state pension age from 67 to 68.

Julian Knight: Will the Minister explain to the House the potential debt impact on future generations of spending up to £39 billion reverting to the 1995 timetable, as well as of Labour’s plan to freeze any increases in the state pension age, which would cost hundreds of billions?

Guy Opperman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I recognise that he has more than 25 years’ experience of working in the pensions industry through his previous journalistic work. The reality is that if the Pensions Acts 1995 and 2011 were to be revoked, it would cost well in excess of £70 billion. If we were to follow the path set out in the Labour party manifesto, which would keep the state pension age at 66, it would cost approximately £250 billion compared with the itinerary set out by the independent review commissioned by the Government and produced by John Cridland.
The Cridland review is very clear on that point. It says:
“In 1917 King George V sent the first telegrams to those celebrating their 100th birthday. 24 were sent that year. In 2016 around 6,000 people will have received a card from Her Majesty the Queen. In 2050, we expect over 56,000 people to reach this milestone.
Three factors are at play here: a growing population; an ageing population as the Baby Boomers retire; and an unprecedented increase in life expectancy. A baby girl born in 2017 can expect to live to be 94 years and a boy to be 91. By 2047 it could well be 98 and 95 respectively…The world of the Third Age is now a very different one, in which those lucky enough to get the State Pension will on average spend almost a third of their adult life in retirement, a proportion never before reached.”
It was clear that the Government had to act.

Andrew Selous: Can the Minister tell us what specific help Jobcentre Plus is able to give older women to help them to retrain or to reskill to find age-appropriate work? That is a question that a number of older women often ask. What specific help is out there for them?

Guy Opperman: Having visited his local jobcentre, my hon. Friend will be aware that a great deal of assistance is provided by the job coaches. However, help comes not just from job coaches and jobcentres but from local job clubs, which I am sure exist in his constituency, as they do in mine; from individual flexible working arrangements; and from jobs fairs, which a number of colleagues have mentioned. I have done three myself, culminating in the last one in September, which was highly successful. There is also all manner of private sector support on an ongoing basis.

David Linden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Guy Opperman: I will give way in a moment, but first let me address the issue in relation to Scotland. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) refused 10 times to give way. If I were him, I would say that he was frit, but I will not go down that route.
In addition to the substantial support that the UK Government are providing, which is worth £50 billion across the country and 6% of GDP, the Scottish Government now have significant new powers available to them to tailor welfare provision to people in Scotland. Although pensions remain a reserved matter, the Scotland Act 2016 has given the Scottish Government the ability to use a wide range of new welfare provisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) correctly set out the provisions of section 28 of the Scotland Act. There are of course section 24 powers as well. I refer all colleagues, on both sides of the House, to a letter written to my predecessor by Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the Scottish Government. She says that the power under section 26
“is limited to providing help with ‘short term needs’, and those needs must require to be met to avoid a risk to a person’s wellbeing. That would not readily allow assistance to the majority of women most affected by the acceleration of increase in their State Pension Age. Their needs and the risks to their well-being would have to be assessed individually.”
There is an acceptance in that letter that, as Scottish Conservative colleagues have said, the powers are there. Those powers commenced on 5 September 2016. It is up to the Scottish Government to determine how they will use those powers, but—

Ian Blackford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am asking for your guidance about what we can do, because the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, is  seeking to mislead the House. It is absolutely crystal clear in the Scotland Act 2016 that the Scottish Parliament is not in a position to introduce benefits by reason of old age. That is quite clear, and the Minister should be truthful with the people of this country. He should stop blaming the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government for a responsibility that solely lies here with Westminster.

Desmond Swayne: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rosie Winterton: I will first answer the original point of order. First of all, of course the Minister is being truthful. Secondly, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) knows that this subject is a matter for debate.

Desmond Swayne: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just going to observe the contradiction that it is impossible to, as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said, “inadvertently seek” to mislead the House. One either misleads the House seeking to do so or not.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful advice. I suggest that we move on, because time is very limited and we do not want to delay the debate further with continuous points of order.

Guy Opperman: I fully understand, and I will move on, but I will make one single point in reply to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. I specifically read the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, quoting what she said. When the right hon. Gentleman criticises me, he should be aware and conscious that he is criticising someone from his own party.

Ross Thomson: Regarding the point of order, does the Minister agree that the argument can be made that people under the age of the retirement age of 66 are not in old age? The Scottish Government have already been in correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions, and the DWP has accepted that very argument. The Scottish Government have the powers, they just do not use them.

Guy Opperman: The reality of the situation, given the motion facing us today, is that one has to ask what the Scottish Government are doing. My hon. Friend is entirely right.
The issue dates back to 1995, when the Government legislated after two years of debate and consultation to equalise the state pension age in order to eliminate gender inequalities in state pensions. There had been welcome increases in life expectancy, and there was an anticipated increase in the number of pensioners in the years to come.

David Linden: Will the Minister give way?

Guy Opperman: I will give way for the last time. I am conscious that 20 Members wish to speak.

David Linden: I have come through an apprenticeship on how this works. The Minister made a point about jobcentres, but he is actually closing half of Glasgow’s jobcentres. I have a question for him about life  expectancy—I asked him this 10 days ago in Westminster Hall, so he has had 10 days to find out the answer. Can he tell me the life expectancy in Glasgow East?

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, without a shadow of a doubt, life expectancy has increased in all parts of the country and in all socioeconomic groups over the past 30 years. I refer him to the Cridland report, which accepts the situation that has existed for the past 30 years, and the change that has been made.
Developments in policy have included the Pensions Act 1995, as well as the Pensions Act 2007, passed when the Labour party was in power. It is a shame that the Labour party is now scrapping the fiscal prudence that it seemed to demonstrate with the 2007 Act by now revoking its desire to increase the pension age beyond 66. Under the coalition, action was taken in the Pensions Act 2011 to increase the pension age as a result of enhanced life expectancy.

Helen Goodman: Will the Minister give way?

Grahame Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Guy Opperman: I will not give way any more, because I am conscious that 20 Members wish to speak.
Automatic enrolment was introduced in 2012 on a cross-party basis after a considerable amount of time. The important point is that the overall participation in workplace pensions of eligible female employees in 2012 was 58% but, following the introduction of automatic enrolment, the figure increased to 80% in 2016. For males, the figure increased from 52% to 76% in the same period. The private sector has seen the largest increase in participation in workplace pensions, and there was no gender gap in participation rates in 2016.
In the circumstances, I would respectfully point out that the key choice a Government face when seeking to control state pension spend is whether to increase the state pension age or to pay lower pensions, with an inevitable impact on pensioner poverty. The only alternative is to ask the working generation to pay an even larger share of their income to support pensions.

Vicky Ford: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Guy Opperman: I am not going to give way again—I am so sorry.
While increasing longevity is something to be celebrated, we must also be realistic about the demographic and fiscal challenges it creates for us as a society. Since the early 2000s, it has been widely recognised that we face big questions as a society about how we ensure economic security for people in retirement, while maintaining fairness between generations.
The Pensions Commission found in 2005 that a state pension age fixed at 65 was no longer sustainable or affordable. Between 2007 and 2014, three separate Acts of Parliament were introduced, each responding to changes in life expectancy by changing the state pension age. At the same time, the state pension has been increased, between 2010 and 2017, by £1,250 a year for an individual who is on a full state pension.
So with increasing financial pressures, as I have described, we cannot change a policy that has been implemented for over 22 years and supported by all three major political parties. The Government have to ensure that the costs of an ageing population are shared out fairly, without placing an unfair financial burden on future generations.

Alex Cunningham: I despair, because having stood at this Dispatch Box, led for the Opposition in Westminster Hall debates and worked on the Pension Schemes Bill, with the matter before us taking centre stage, I have spoken about this issue, like a lot of other Members, many times. However, it is not the Scottish National party that I blame for that, nor is it members of the Labour party, and it is definitely not the ’50s-born women who have been energetic, consistent and strong in pushing this issue.
The Conservative party is the reason we are debating this topic yet again, but we know that many Conservative MPs pledged their support for these women by making speeches, by taking up photo opportunities, and by becoming members of the all-party group. A few months ago, I stood here and highlighted the fact that there were no fewer than 37 of them. Among them are the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for Salisbury (John Glen), for North Devon (Peter Heaton-Jones), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Colchester (Will Quince) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan)—that is just nine of them.
This weak Government continue to stick their head in the sand and hope that the issue will go away. I do not know how many more times I or anyone else has to say this to the Minister: the issue is not going away.
I am frustrated and impatient that we are yet again debating this topic when the Government could do something to fix the problem right now. I do not understand the politics of why the Government refuse to address it. They angered the older generation during the general election, and look what happened: their huge predicted majority failed to materialise, and now they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is making a very good case. As a 1950s woman, I am extremely sympathetic to the 4,000 WASPI women in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that what the Government have failed to understand is that some of these women have been working since they were 15?

Alex Cunningham: That is most certainly the case, and the Government need to understand that. My wife herself has been working since that young age.
For some reason, the Government persist in pushing huge numbers of ’50s-born women into financial difficulty and distress. It is time for the Government to put their pride aside and do what is right.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my hon. Friend for acknowledging the financial plight of many of these women. Women in my constituency have been forced to sell or remortgage their homes, and to spend the money they had set aside for retirement  now so that they can exist, which will increase the poverty they experience in retirement. That has not been acknowledged at all by the Government.

Alex Cunningham: Indeed it has not, and I am sure we will hear many such examples in the debate.
I have heard stories from numerous women affected by the changes of their desperation and fear—and it is fear—about how they will cope in poverty as they wait even longer for their state pension. Does the Minister understand how difficult it is for a woman in her 60s to retrain and gain employment? The job market and the skills needed in today’s workplace are very different from what they were 40 years ago.

Grahame Morris: My hon. Friend is making powerful points. Does he agree that the Government have an opportunity to act while the ball is in their court and before the collective action for maladministration compels them to act?

Alex Cunningham: That is the case, and I will refer to that matter later in my speech.
We have a system that does not help older people to retrain and get back into meaningful employment. The welfare system has been torn to pieces, disabled people have been humiliated through repeated assessments, and the state pension is becoming increasingly difficult to access.
The Labour party has laid out the approach that we would take to reduce the strain on vulnerable and struggling women. We would extend pension credit to those who were due to retire before the increase in the pension age. That would alleviate the toughest circumstances, and restore the faith and dignity that many people feel they have lost. It would provide support worth up to £155 a week to half a million of the most vulnerable women affected by the increase in the state pension age. We have also proposed allowing those who have been affected to receive their state pension up to two years early at a reduced rate, to give women the choice over what works best for them.

Philip Davies: I have a great deal of sympathy for the women concerned, but the issue is how we pay for this—I know that is not something the Labour party tends to concern itself with a great deal. I would support taking money from the overseas aid budget to provide transitional arrangements for these women. Will the shadow Minister show his concern for these women by agreeing to that, or does he put overseas aid ahead of the WASPI women?

Alex Cunningham: We know fine and well that as GDP goes down, the amount of money spent overseas also reduces. The poor overseas also need support. If we need to find this money, we can start by looking within British budgets.
Why do the Government not look at our proposals? Why do they not give these women some hope? We heard from the Minister that the Government’s position is that they will not make further concessions, but I urge him to go back to the Secretary of State after the debate and persuade him to think again.
Earlier this year, the Secretary of State said that he and the Department for Work and Pensions would look into individual cases of hardship. We know from a freedom of information request that the DWP has concluded just a handful of complaint investigations relating to the ’50s-born women campaign, although more than 4,500 complaints were received. Will the Minister update the House about the progress on those complaints?

Chris Stephens: Is not the real problem demonstrated by my constituent who wrote to me a fortnight ago? She was born in 1954, has been in insecure, low-paid work, and has no access to an occupational pension or savings. The Government must address this issue.

Alex Cunningham: I said a few minutes ago that we would hear many examples of the plight faced by ’50s-born women, and that is yet another one.
Although I agree that this mess was created by the Government, I want to touch on the Scottish Government’s social security powers. I know that there have been some heated exchanges on this subject already. The SNP says that it cannot act to resolve the issue in Scotland because pension provision is reserved to the UK Government. Although that is true, the Scotland Act 2016 gave the SNP Government powers to top up social security or to create new social security policies. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) denied that they have the power to introduce new benefits based on age, so will the Minister commit this afternoon to publishing a clear paper outlining exactly what the Government believe the Scottish Government can and cannot do with their powers. Perhaps that would make the matter clear once and for all.
Labour has made a commitment to extend pension credit and provide early access to a state pension, but we cannot deliver that because we are not in government. Therefore, there has to be a challenge to our SNP colleagues: use your powers to help women north of the border and, if they are insufficient, chat to the Government, because they believe you do have the powers.

Mhairi Black: I do not think that anyone on the SNP Benches feels the need for any clarification, because it is already there. We all remember vividly how it was the Conservatives and—it is unfortunate I have to say this, because I am not trying to make a party point—the Labour party that made sure that we did not have power over pensions.

Alex Cunningham: Nobody suggested that the Scottish Government had pension powers; we are saying that they could use social security policy. I suggest again that the Scottish Government chats to the UK Government. I think they just need to get their heads together and talk rationally, but I would rather the UK Government published a paper spelling out the position.
I do not want to keep having to stand here debating this issue. I do not want us to give false hope to the ’50s-born women who are fighting, because it is their livelihoods we are talking about. I want the Minister to do something—to reach out across the Chamber and work for a real solution—to demonstrate that the House is listening to the residents of this country.

Philippa Whitford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Cunningham: I am nearly finished. Before I conclude, I would like to ask the Minister what the Department is doing in relation to the legal challenge from the WASPI campaigners, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). Has the Minister made contingencies for the day when the courts rule against the Government, as they may well do, and order that ’50s-born women be compensated? What is happening in relation to that?
Although we support the motion, I think that the House needs to be able to vote on a motion that will be binding on the Government.

Guy Opperman: I will answer two of the hon. Gentleman’s points. First, the Government do not believe that there has been maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to the legal claim by Bindmans, and that includes in the 13 years when the Labour party was in power. Secondly, with regard to his assertions about the Scottish Government, the situation is as I said when I cited the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, my opposite number in the Scottish Government.

Alex Cunningham: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but he knows as well as I do that the decisions of successive Governments are overturned in the courts time and time again, and the then Government end up having to pay for it.
I want to see before the House a motion that actually means something, and that is binding on the Government to deliver some of the relief that these women desperately need. We will continue to look for that opportunity, and then we will call on the supporters of ’50s-born women, from both sides of the House, to vote for that relief and make something happen.

Peter Aldous: We have debated this matter on numerous occasions. It is important that it is not used for the purpose of political expediency, because many people are experiencing serious challenges. We must listen to them and seek to address their concerns in a way that is responsible and financially prudent, but also just and fair.
I have received a great deal of correspondence over the past two years from constituents who have graphically highlighted the challenge that they face. When many of us presented petitions in the Chamber last autumn, I was in second place behind the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for the number of people who had signed, as the Waveney petition was signed by just under 2,250. It was also endorsed unanimously by Conservative-run Waveney District Council.
The impact of the changes is being felt disproportionately in areas of the UK where there has been a tradition of women going out to work—whether in factories, agriculture, fishing, food processing or clerical posts—often part time and not on high salaries. The changes are affecting a lot of women and their families in Lowestoft in my constituency, although many of the businesses in which they worked are no longer there. There used to be, for example, numerous jobs in the fishing support industry and the Sanyo television factory, to name but two.
I acknowledge the challenges that the Government face in addressing those injustices and in coming up with a fair and affordable solution that complies with equalities legislation. I urge them to look carefully at that. There are two private Members’ Bills before Parliament that propose a review of the pension arrangements. One is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the other has been presented by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I am a supporter of the latter Bill, and I urge the Government to consider carrying out a full, proper and meaningful review. For that reason, I will not support the motion tonight, because I do not believe that it provides the evidence base that we need to find a fair, affordable and just solution.
As I have mentioned, this issue disproportionately affects specific parts of the country. I thus ask the Government to carry out research to establish the extent of this problem and to come up with a fair and affordable solution that addresses the pockets of the country in which there is a real issue.

Gavin Newlands: The last time I spoke on this matter, I said that I welcomed the opportunity to make another contribution on the WASPI issue, but that was over 18 months ago, and I do not welcome having to make this argument again. It is absolutely ridiculous that this Government have refused to help these women, whose only crime is to have been born in the 1950s. Although the original mistake goes back to 1995, Governments of different persuasions have been culpable. We can sit here and squabble all day about who has done what and who is most to blame, but the problem is in the here and now. The reality is kicking in for 6,200 women in Paisley and Renfrewshire North, and for more than 3.7 million women and their families across the UK, so it falls to this Government to fix the mess.
I do, however, welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the WASPI campaign once again. All these women are asking for is fairness. This is the 11th time that their plight has been debated in this House, and we have had many ministerial responses, which have ranged from the incompetent to the ridiculous and everything in between. I was hoping for a better speech from the Minister given the arithmetic of the House, the natural majority in favour of transitional arrangements, and the—to say the least—precarious position of this Prime Minister and this Government.
I have had discussions with Conservative Members and overheard conversations about this issue in which Members have conceded that this has been bungled. They accepted that many women affected by this reform were only told about the changes 14 years after they made, but said it was just too darn expensive to do anything about it. However, times have changed. The Chancellor has found his magic money tree, with £1 billion for the Democratic Unionist party and £3.7 billion for Brexit preparations—a billion pounds here and a billion pounds there: before you know it, it is real money. We have had billions for wasteful spending and cash for votes, but nothing for these women, who have paid into the system all their lives.
With inflation rising faster than at any point in recent years, many of the women affected will face further burdens in relation to their cost of living. It is now more  vital than ever that they are supported, which is why SNP Members will not stop until justice is done. The Chancellor’s Budget was a huge missed opportunity to deliver protection for the WASPI women. As he continues to shirk his responsibility, I hope that the Scottish Tories, who were keen to support the WASPI campaign while seeking election, will vote with their consciences, rather than rubber-stamping the line sent to them by the Whips Office.
In conclusion, I want to echo the words of the former Member for Foyle, Mark Durkan, who has been a great loss to this House. In an impassioned contribution in one of our previous WASPI debates, he said:
“If we fail to pass this motion, we will be saying that those women are an acceptable casualty on the way to equality, and we cannot accept invidious treatment in the name of equality.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 503.]

Ross Thomson: Equalising the state pension age between men and women is a principle about which the UK Government, the WASPI campaign and I am sure all of us in the Chamber agree. However, there is rightly concern about the unfair and disproportionate impact of the 2011 reforms on women born in the 1950s, and this concern is shared by Members on both sides of the House.
Some 5,200 women in my constituency are affected. Since the general election in June, as Members might imagine, I have been meeting local women who are affected by the changes and who, in some cases, have had to change their retirement plans radically because they were not made properly aware of the changes made by 1995 Act.
One constituent I recently met was employed by NHS Grampian for 39 years. She worked hard and full time for her whole working life, with no maternity leave and no long-term sick leave, until in 2014, during her last few years of work, she had to take a couple of months off for health reasons—first due to cancer of the womb, and subsequently cancer of the bone marrow. She requested retirement, and she was 60 on 1 December 2016, but because of the changes to state pension policy, she is not receiving a state pension, even though she paid in, in full, during her 39 years of working. This has caused her great strain and worry, and she is naturally concerned about her finances.
Last Friday, I met a 61-year-old constituent who expected to receive her state pension in 2016. She also contributed through national insurance for more than 40 years. When she received her first letter about the age changes from the DWP back in 2013, she was in full employment and good health, but her circumstances changed in 2015, when she was made redundant and diagnosed with breast cancer. I am thankful that my constituent has made a recovery following successful treatment to date, but she finds herself with no income, and the downturn in oil and gas in Aberdeen has made it very difficult for her to get even a job interview. At the moment, therefore, she has to rely on the very pot of savings that she worked hard to build up.
I wanted to highlight my constituents’ cases as a reminder that the state pension system is founded on a contributory principle. It is not a welfare benefit. Those   cases show that this group of women have done the right thing. They worked hard all their lives and paid their dues in good faith, but now they face being completely short-changed. That is not fair.
We have heard a lot of bluster from SNP Members, but let us be clear that the Scottish Government have the powers to make a change. Their record clearly shows not only their incompetence, but their refusal to use those powers. Let us be absolutely clear: my constituents know that I will make their voices heard loud and clear in this place.

Carolyn Harris: Here we go again: another day, another debate on the injustice facing the 1950s-born women as a result of the pension changes. More than 3 million women have lost out because of the changes to pension law, and more than 3,000 in my own constituency of Swansea East have been unfairly treated by the changes to the state pension.

Nick Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those women have worked in manual jobs since they were 15 years of age—some of them since they were 14—so they deserve fair play?

Carolyn Harris: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. These women have been the backbone of our country and they have been betrayed by this Government.
What is really scary is how many women do not realise that they have been affected. Yet this Government are still not listening. They have betrayed these women, stolen their security and shattered their dreams. Without the time to prepare and make the necessary alternative arrangements, very many women born in the 1950s have been left in financial despair.

Martin Docherty: On shattering lives, the life expectancy for women in my constituency is among the shortest on these islands. This is a brutal attack on their end-of-life progress, especially if they are living with a short-term condition that will come to a brutal end with no pension from the Government.

Carolyn Harris: It is cruel—there is no other word to describe the current state of play. These women have fought tirelessly for justice, but appallingly their cries for justice are falling on deaf ears.
I think that most people are aware of my passion for the campaign. Like the 1950s women, I am not going to give up. I know that they are not going to give up, either, so none of us is going away. And do you know what? The problem isn’t going away either.
These 1950s women have been inexcusably disadvantaged by the handling and communication of the changes to the state pension, and some women will be as much as £40,000 out of pocket. These women have paid into the system since the 1960s. They paid in with the expectation that they would retire with a state pension at 60, but due to an abysmal lack of correspondence they find themselves severely out of pocket. They have not been given enough time to make alternative arrangements, and as a result very many are facing dire financial hardship.

Philippa Whitford: Obviously, this is a UK-wide issue, not one that applies only to women in Scotland. The women I have spoken to are not looking for the kind of crisis grants that the Scottish Government can deliver. They do not want to go begging. They actually want what they are due.

Carolyn Harris: I do not want to get involved in the argument about what the Scottish Government can and cannot do, but I agree that this matter affects all women, regardless of their nationality.
Many in this House stand by these women. I call on the Government to make a commitment to look again at this gross injustice, to discuss a productive and constructive way forward for the women affected, and to listen to what we are saying.
Not all women are fit enough to work. Some women who are expected to jump through hoops before they can receive unemployment benefit do so risking their own physical and mental health.

Jamie Stone: rose—

Carolyn Harris: I am going to make progress.
The reality is that these women are desperate. I have women affected all over the country calling my office every day, letting me know that they have had to sell their belongings and that they are relying on family, friends and food banks just to exist. I understand that this might not be comfortable to listen to, but it is the reality. These women are only asking for compassion, for fair play and, more importantly, for respect.
I will continue to call on the Government to stop burying their head in the sand and to do the right thing by these women. My private Member’s Bill is due to have its Second Reading debate in April. It states that these women need reasonable, transitional arrangements to allow them not just to enjoy retirement, but to survive it. So many Members across the House agree that these changes to the state pension age are unjust and unfair, and that these women have been robbed of their pension. When will the Government recognise the mistake they have made with the 1950s women? These women will not be ignored.

Mike Wood: Over the past two and a half years I have met many constituents who have been directly affected by the various changes to the state pension age. Listening to them, it is impossible not to feel every sympathy, given the circumstances in which many find themselves. If I suddenly found out that I would not be able to retire at the age I had expected, I am not sure that I could say how I felt—actually, I probably could, but I fear my language would not be parliamentary.
As a teenage boy in the early 1990s, I probably did not pay as much attention to women’s pensions as many other people did, but I do remember the announcement in 1993 that the state pension age would have to be equalised upwards. There was widespread publicity at the time, through the media and the leaflets that have been referred to. None the less, it is clear that many women, for one reason or another, were genuinely unaware  of that. As late as 2012, 6% of the women affected still expected to retire at 60, despite the Department for Work and Pensions having sent out 11 million leaflets and letters. However, that was significant progress since 2004, when just 73% of the women affected were aware of the 1995 reforms.
Clearly there are solid reasons why successive Governments here and in many other developed economies have been increasing and equalising the state pension age. The fact that even a relatively small proportion of people affected were unaware of changes that will have such a large impact on their retirement raises broader issues about how public authorities communicate pension matters, and Government at all levels need to consider that.
The truth is that the state pension age will not be reduced to 60—arguably, that would be illegal under anti-discrimination legislation—so we must look at what can be done not only to help those women born in the 1950s back into work, but to help all those who will find themselves working later in life. I hope that the Government can come up with further suggestions on what support can be provided.

Alan Brown: When people ask me what it is like at Westminster, I often observe that I live in a parallel universe from the Tory party—I am sure its Members feel the same about me. We all inhabit a political bubble, but let me recall some of the concerns I have heard from Tories recently: whether Big Ben is going to bong, whether Clerks in the House are allowed to wear wigs, whether it is credible for MPs to ask questions in the Chamber without wearing a tie—these are some of the things that have concerned Tories recently. I have also heard them say that when they visit jobcentres people tell them, “It’s great being on universal credit. When I’m on universal credit, I find work”. They do not see the irony that they are meeting these people in the jobcentre. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), said that WASPI women should be able to get apprenticeships, and the Chancellor recently said that there were no unemployed people. They have also said that the majority of people knew about the changes to the pension age. They live in a different world from me.

Rachel Maclean: What exactly is wrong with a 65-year-old woman taking up an apprenticeship? I am not talking about all women, but why would the hon. Gentleman deny any woman the chance to work at 65?

Alan Brown: That is a nonsense argument. I would hope that that woman would not get paid the apprenticeship levy. The Government have a shocking minimum wage for apprenticeships. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) stood up during the Budget debate and said that the people of Taunton Deane had thousands of pounds more in their pockets. It really is a different world.
People on universal credit struggle as their debts increase. Food bank usage is up. Only this month, a British Medical Journal study estimated that up to 120,000 deaths in England and Wales could be attributed to the  Tory austerity policy since 2010, and people over 60 are most at risk. This only touches on the world that some of the WASPI women inhabit: having to sell homes and downsize to survive; mental health problems associated with the stress; the humiliation of seeking jobs; marital pressure and break-ups; just living with the daily anger and disappointment at being let down by the state and a Government who refuse to listen.
In a previous SNP Opposition day debate, the then Secretary of State challenged our £8 billion costed proposal to reverse the Pensions Act 2011. He said that we need to look at the longer-term horizon and that it would cost £30 billion to 2025. Well, just a few months later, the Tories trooped through the Lobby following the Budget and voted for £30 billion of tax cuts, including £23.5 billion in corporation tax giveaways. So even if it would cost £30 billion, it could have been found, and it was there in the last Budget. The Budget, which has just been passed, contained a £3.2 billion stamp duty tax giveaway that will only increase house prices, £3.7 billion for Brexit preparations and an additional £7 billion for a national productivity fund. I welcome that money, but it shows that the magic money tree exists and that money can be found whenever the Tories want it.
We have heard the argument that the state pension age equalisation is all because of the bad EU—it is EU rules that have forced it upon us—yet I have not heard one of the mad Brexiteers in the Government come to the Chamber and say, “One of the benefits of leaving the EU is that we can reverse the 2011 Act”. They have never said, “Let’s stick it to the EU, take it on and give these women what they deserve”. It is high time they gave them what they deserve, and it is high time the Government started listening.

James Cartlidge: I agree with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). The WASPI campaigners are very passionate and tenacious, and one obviously sympathises with those who, having saved all their lives, feel they were not given adequate notice. Obviously there is a legitimate grievance there, but the point is that, as parliamentarians, if we decide to go through a Division Lobby and vote for something—to join a cause, to jump on its bandwagon—we must have a credible, funded policy to stand behind, otherwise we are selling snake oil. Once again, we have it from the SNP. It stills says we can use the national insurance surplus. I will read out a few more written answers about the ability to use the surplus, which is their policy for saving the WASPI women.
In March 2008, the former Minister Mike O’Brien said:
“Any surplus of NICs over social security benefits in any one year…is not…an extra resource available to spend.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2008; Vol. 472, c. 2605W.]
In February 2009, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
“what assessment he has made of the merits of using future national insurance fund surpluses to fund an increase in the state pension.”
That was Labour’s policy at the time. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), then a Minister, replied, on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
“Any increase in the basic state pension has a cumulative impact on Government spending going forward. The Government consider the short-term use of the surplus on the national insurance fund in this way to be unsustainable in the long term.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2009; Vol. 487, c. 1852W.]
That is not least because it has been in deficit and it is cyclical. I think that any of us who claim to support the WASPI women must say which line of taxation, or which line of expenditure, in the Red Book we are prepared to use to pay for this.

Alex Chalk: I am afraid that the position of the Scottish National party is so obviously partisan and unaffordable that it does the WASPI campaign no favours, but for all that, there are women in my constituency who were not notified and who are clearly experiencing hardship. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more constructive to consider sensible, affordable measures, such as the early draw-down of bus passes, which could help to address the genuine need that exists?

James Cartlidge: Of course there are measures that we can consider. My point is that unless we can identify specific lines of tax or expenditure to pay for them, the money will simply be borrowed and paid back by future generations.

Mhairi Black: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Cartlidge: I should be delighted.

Mhairi Black: I have heard a lot about how no one is coming to us with a plan for what we can do. As I said earlier, we came up with a plan, and we think we can argue for it. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with it, he should come up with a plan himself. There have been umpteen debates, and we have been waiting for months—years—for the Government to come forward with some kind of proposal, because the 2011 proposal clearly is not good enough.

James Cartlidge: I think the hon. Lady is missing the point. I am not saying that to my WASPI campaigners. I am not full of righteous anger, so high on my high horse that my ears pop, like the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). If we are to go out on a limb to that degree, we must have a credible policy. We must be able to say, “This is how we are going to pay for it.”

Ian Blackford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Cartlidge: I do not think that I should give way again, but I will, because the hon. Gentleman was very generous to me. However, others wish to speak, so I shall wind up my speech immediately afterwards.

Ian Blackford: We have tabled a very straightforward motion that asks the Government to introduce mitigation measures. The hon. Gentleman has asked for costed proposals, but we gave him one last year in the Landman report, on deferring the increase in women’s pensionable age. It would have cost £8 billion. That is one option. We have done our work; the Government have not done theirs.

James Cartlidge: I gave way to that intervention, so I shall now wind up my speech, because others wish to speak.
Given that £8 billion is a huge amount of money, it is necessary to identify a specific area of taxation or expenditure—other budgets, as an Opposition Member has said. Until people are prepared to do that, we cannot say that a policy is available to fix this. We are just jumping on a bandwagon.

Stephen Lloyd: I am grateful to the SNP for securing this important Opposition day debate, and appreciate the opportunity to speak in it. Like every other Member, I have been contacted by numerous WASPI women in my constituency. We all know how much of an impact this has had, and we all know just how upset, frustrated and deeply angry many WASPI women feel.
Before I go on to ask the Government for transition payments, let me point out that we are all culpable. One of the things that I have found so interesting while sitting here listening to all the different arguments is the element of amnesia. Every political party that is represented in the Chamber now is culpable because of the WASPI issues: the Conservatives, the Labour party and possibly, it appears, even the SNP. I do not know that for sure, because I am not a Scottish MP or a Scottish constituent, but I do know that, during the passage of what became the 1995 Pensions Act, the Tories did not tell people what was happening right at the beginning. In 1999 and then in 2001, 2002 and 2003, Labour did not engage in the mass communication that would have warned the women of what was coming—and I hold my hands up as a member of the coalition Government. I do not think that we gave enough information in 2011, when we changed the retirement ages. So the first thing I want to say, despite all the Sturm und Drang in the Chamber, is that I think we have let WASPI women down. End of.
Secondly, I feel that the Government should give serious consideration to finding some transitional money. As a number of Members have pointed out, many of these women, particularly those who are in menial and artisan jobs, will not be in the same physical shape in their early sixties as someone who has not done a backbreaking job for 40 or 45 years. I do believe that the Minister and the Government understand the strength of feeling, the passion, the anger and the exceptional frustration that so many WASPI women feel.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally unfair that these women are not paid their pension when they have a full contribution record, and that instead they are being made to work beyond a time when they are able or are forced to rely on insecure benefits that are too low?

Stephen Lloyd: That is an important point about the many years of contributions and of back-breaking jobs.
I return to the fact that we are all culpable; we know that in this Chamber— Conservative, Labour, coalition and, according to the Conservatives and Labour, the  SNP as well. I do not say—because I would be lying to my constituents—that we are going to cancel the new retirement age and take it back to 60; anyone who says that knows they are telling whoppers, and that that is not going to happen.

Jim McMahon: rose—

Stephen Lloyd: I am going to continue.
If there are Members who honestly say that to their constituents—well, I am not going to cast any slurs on anyone in the Chamber. This is having a shocking impact in some parts of the country and on many WASPI women and I believe that the Government have a duty to find some additional money to assist with the transition period. That is the right and the honourable thing to do, and I believe that the Government must find that money. If they do, a lot of WASPI women will, possibly through gritted teeth, accept that transition money and move on with this challenging age change. Without that, however, the anger and the sense of justifiable unfairness will increase, which will leave a real scar for a heck of a lot of women born in the 1950s who have contributed not just to the greatness of our nation, but through the children, grandchildren and families that have made our country what it is today.
I urge the Minister to go to the Chancellor and ask him to find an element of transition money that will at least allow the WASPI women to have the funds, not just to make up for losing the six years, but to cover the money that this has cost so many. I urge the Minister to find a way; find some transition money, make a difference, and do it now.

Bob Seely: This is an important cause that affects thousands of women on the Isle of Wight, and I have had the pleasure of meeting my WASPI representatives on several occasions. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his words on the issue; he knows I hold him in high regard. The Government have done good work on pensions and in many other areas that have improved the lives of pensioners.
My hon. Friend talked about the importance of fairness. In justification of the WASPI women, they would say that the current system is not fair to them, and it is difficult to argue against that point. I have heard many stories of hardship from WASPI women on the island, many of whom found out at a very late stage of the day that their pensions would be extremely negatively affected. These are not spendthrift people; they are people who have either raised families or worked hard and paid into the system over many years. It pains me to read stories of hardship from them.
My concern for the Government is that a pensions Bill might force this issue, and I believe that, on the grounds of fairness and common sense, moving in some way to rectify this issue now would be better than being forced to do so later. So if there is a way of putting in place transition payments or a mechanism can be found to alleviate some of the worst problems faced by the WASPI women, who are an admirable cause, the Government would get my full support. I know my hon. Friend the Minister cares about this issue very much.

Jim McMahon: Given the likelihood that the Government will eventually have to change their position, would it not make sense for a good Government to ensure that financial provision was being made for that eventuality now?

Bob Seely: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am making that point as well. Clearly, voting either way is not going to change things today, but I hope that the Government will consider this matter in the light of any pensions Bill that is introduced later.

Ronnie Cowan: We recently heard from the Chancellor about how he had buckled under the immense lobbying pressure of his 13 Scottish Tory colleagues. That pressure supposedly made all the difference to his scrapping VAT payments for Scotland’s police and fire services. Perhaps the half-baked baker’s dozen could have another word in his ear to prove that they understand this situation and that they care about the WASPI women and are seeking to achieve justice for them. If the UK Government make no changes, this will simply show that the Scottish Tories are not as influential as they are made out to be, or that they simply do not care about the plight of the WASPI women. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) spoke as though he truly understood the problem, but will he follow us through the Lobby, or was it all just empty rhetoric?
Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, what would happen if MPs born in the 1950s were not made aware of major changes to their pensions that resulted in their not receiving them until years later? If we debated that—and we would—the House would be full to the gunnels. MPs would be filling every single seat, and the steps in between. How quickly would this House find a political solution to that problem? How quick are we to vote ourselves a pay rise? That is the benchmark that the Government should be judged by. On behalf of the 5,700 WASPI women of Inverclyde, I want to tell the UK Government that we will keep on bringing these debates to the House, that we will continue to raise the issue in the press and that we will not go away until there has been a resolution to the plight of those affected by these pension changes.
The momentum of the WASPI campaign has not weakened. Next week, my office will host a meeting of the Inverclyde WASPI group as it maintains its work on attracting new volunteers and making sure that the affected women have access to advice and support. The campaign has already raised more than £100,000 to fund an initial legal campaign, and the Minister must surely be aware it is now too well organised and well funded for him to continue dismissing its concerns. According to the campaign, 196 Members have committed themselves to assisting it. This should be seen as a signal that the UK Government need to begin a dialogue with the WASPI women and that they have to start that dialogue now. The women are being very reasonable in asking for this opportunity. There may be many small steps along the way to achieving a solution, but the UK Government should see sense and take this first step willingly, rather than being dragged along by the undeniable force of public pressure. It is not too late for this  Government to do the decent thing and make amends for this ill-advised, poorly administered and damaging policy.

Vicky Ford: It is a great honour to speak in the debate on this important issue on behalf of the many WASPI women of Chelmsford who have been to visit me, especially the lovely Cheryl Lucas, who speaks with great calm and compassion on the issue. I have deep respect for them and for the situation they find themselves in. Many of these women have worked for many years and paid their taxes and national insurance contributions. They have told me how they had made plans based on the expectation that they would retire on a certain date, only for that date to be changed. Some of them genuinely feel that they were not consulted or made aware of the change of date. Others had retired early in anticipation—

John Woodcock: The hon. Lady is putting her case very well. Is this not why it is such an insult to suggest to older women that things will be fine if they go out and get an apprenticeship?

Vicky Ford: Let me carry on with my point, because I would dearly love to help the WASPI women in my constituency who find themselves in this situation.
I look at the statistics, and as a mathematician, I remember looking at life expectancy a few years ago. My mother is 30 years older than I am, and my daughter is 30 years younger than I am. Of my mother’s age group—those born in 1937—6% will live to 100. For my age group, 16% will live to 100. In my daughter’s age group, it is 26%. We are all living longer, and we all therefore need to work longer. That is why successive Labour and Conservative Governments have been right to take measures to change the pension age.
I have thought about what more we could do to help the women who have been affected. If we give them additional financial or tax benefits, what then do I say to women like me who were born in the 1960s? Why should a woman born in 1959 get an additional benefit, but not the woman born in 1960? I have championed equality all my life, so what do I say to the men when the women get an additional benefit? What do I say to my daughter’s generation, who are struggling with student debt and struggling to get on the housing ladder? They can see that they may never have anything like the workplace pensions that we have had.
The jobs that the WASPI women have been doing in the past may often not be jobs that they want to continue doing into their 60s and may not suit them, which is why it is so important that we champion opportunities for some of our older workers—people in their 50s, like myself, and people in their 60s. We should go out and tell employers that these women are fantastic and can really add value. For those who have genuine problems, we must be faster in getting support to them. I was contacted by a WASPI woman just this week who has cancer and needs support, so we need to be quicker. I understand why the Government cannot write a blank cheque, but please let us find some support.

Martin Whitfield: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).  The WASPI situation is a stain on this country. Were it not for the decisions made by others, these women would perhaps never have thought of turning to politics or of organising, lobbying, shouting and screaming. People such as Ali Wallis and Pat Milligan from East Lothian are organising and seeking justice for the WASPI women. Some 6,000 women in my constituency are being organised and assisted to follow the four-stage process not to seek their pension, but to seek a maladministration review of how information was not given to them. They meet in my constituency office to plan how to identify the other affected women in the area, and I must pay tribute to my predecessor George Kerevan, who aided and assisted the WASPI women so eloquently.
I must point out that the WASPI campaign’s aim is not the equalisation of pension ages; it is about the transitional state pension arrangements for women born in the 1950s. The campaign recognises the longevity of our population today. The campaign is about the transitional provisions. In March 2016, the Work and Pensions Committee concluded that the communication
“has been too little too late for many women, especially given increases in the state pension age have been accelerated at relatively short notice. Many thousands of women justifiably feel aggrieved.”
Among the 6,000 affected women in East Lothian, those aged between 60 and 62 will see their household incomes fall and income poverty will increase due to the changes. Women who were born in the ’50s have paid so much into our system, and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, which should be extended to all those nearing pension age or receiving a state pension. Perhaps the Government should take this opportunity to write to the women to set out the situation. If the Government are unable to offer any financial compensation, they should at least point out the maladministration steps that could be taken so that the matter can be investigated.
We stand up in this place for the people who struggle to have a voice. The WASPI women do not have that struggle, but they seem to struggle getting the Government to listen to them. We must honour the women who have contributed so much to our society, listen to what they are asking for and give them the respect that they so rightly deserve.

Douglas Ross: I welcome this debate—[Interruption.] Excuse me. I would have welcomed the opportunity to put far more points on the record had the leader of the SNP not taken almost 40 minutes with his opening remarks. This is the first debate in this Chamber—[Interruption.] SNP Members may want to hear what I have to say.
This is the first debate in this Chamber in which I have been able to articulate the views of WASPI women in Moray, and I would have appreciated a little more than three minutes. Our previous Westminster Hall debate was secured by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) in early July, less than a month after I was elected to this place. I had not made a maiden speech and, again, there was a very restrictive time limit. Having previously met Moray WASPI women, I told them that I would not contribute to that debate, and they understood, yet the SNP put out a press release criticising me for it. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) said:
“Douglas Ross must do the right thing for these women”,
despite these women believing that I was doing the right thing for them.
The SNP press release led to comments on social media calling me an “effing snake,” a “little twerp” and a “disgrace to humanity.” In direct response, another message said:
“I think Guy Fawkes had a good idea.”
The SNP has done a lot on this issue, but I agree with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that, despite the wording of the motion, the words from the SNP today do not try to encourage more people to support the motion.
I support the 6,400 women in Moray who are affected by this issue. They all agree on the need to equalise the state pension age, but the biggest issue for me and for them is the lack of communication from Governments of all parties. It is because of that lack of communication that I signed the pledge before the election, and I support the pledge now.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made a valid point about 53% of women relying on the state pension, compared with a far smaller proportion of men.

Tim Loughton: I offer my hon. Friend some refuelling, because the SNP would benefit from listening to his wise words. Just because we are from a different party, it does not mean that our commitment to the cause is any less. Does he agree that one suggestion that would show willing—it came up in the Budget for other generations—is for the WASPI women at least to be given back their bus passes? That would help them, and it would be a start to showing our recognition that there is a problem we need to address.

Douglas Ross: I agree with a lot of what my hon. Friend says, both now and in previous debates on this issue.
More can be done. There is a lot we can discuss and debate, and I have put myself forward to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women. I signed a pledge before the election, and SNP Members have criticised me every day since I have been elected for not honouring that pledge.
I return to the earlier remarks by SNP Members and by the hon. Member for East Antrim. People can be convinced not by shouting them down every time but by trying to get them to go along with us.

Chris Stephens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Douglas Ross: I am just finishing.
A constituent contacted me after the last efforts by the SNP. She said, “I just wanted to say I am disappointed at the media response to your support of WASPI in Moray. I do hope your support for us continues and we don’t become victims in the backlash.” I believe WASPI women are already victims—victims of decisions in this Parliament by both sides—and, because they are already victims, I say in the calmest possible way to the SNP that, despite the actions of SNP Members in this debate, I believe the wording of their motion is sensible. If the House divides tonight, I will be joining them to support their motion.

Neil Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). In my short contribution, I intend to furnish the House with a few examples of the 5,500 women from Airdrie and Shotts who have seen their state pension entitlement cut at short notice. If the Government will not listen to Members on both sides of the House, perhaps they might listen to our constituents and their taxpayers.
My first constituent wishes to remain anonymous. She worked for 43 years and has never been out of work. By the end of 2013 she was exhausted from her work and decided to retire. She knew that she had not yet reached her increased retirement age of 62, but she and her husband calculated their finances and felt that she could and should retire at that time. So she handed in her three months’ notice and it was not until a financial adviser, provided by her employer, visited her home that she found out she could not retire until she was 65. By that time, someone else had been offered her job and she just had to make do, all because of the lack of notice.
The next case is that of Christine Rennie from Airdrie. All her working life she had expected to retire at 60, in 2015, but she was given no notice that that was to be extended until 2021. Mrs Rennie has Crohn’s disease, which is managed by injections into her stomach. The Crohn’s reacts to cold weather, and part of her job as a classroom assistant is playground duty—it does not take me to explain the issues at stake there. Like so many other women in this era, she gave up work to bring up her family and returned to part-time work, with no access to a private pension. She will rely financially on her state pension to retire and she needs it now.
Finally, Ellen Connelly from Airdrie was due to retire aged 60 in 2014, but will now have to wait until 2020, when she turns 66. Highlighting the communications problems once again, Mrs Connelly says she only found out about the state pension age rise via the GMB union magazine. Had she been given proper notice, she would have had the time to find a new job, rather than having to work as a nursing ancillary until she is 66. A lack of notice makes it almost impossible for her to do anything other than continue in that demanding role.
The few cases I have highlighted will not even be the worst examples in my constituency, never mind the rest of the country. They are not the worst we have heard today; they are just a random example from the dozens who have contacted me and will doubtless have contacted others. Every one of these women has had their life turned upside down as a result of the incompetence and intransigence of successive UK Governments.
In conclusion, we all have ladies in our constituencies born in the 1950s who have been impacted by the changes to the state pension age, but there is one thing that does separate us today. Later, some of us will recognise, respect and represent these ladies, and we will be separated from those who will chose to try to ignore them once again. I know where I will be, and that will be in the Lobby backing my WASPI women.

Rachel Maclean: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As time is short, I will focus on a few key issues. I cannot support the motion for a few  crucial reasons, the first of which is that the SNP has not clarified its own domestic position adequately to the House. We have heard that there have been many debates on the issue, and the Minister has clarified that there are powers available in the Scotland Act 2016, passed by this House, so I ask SNP Members to consider why the SNP has not addressed this itself in Scotland. Is it simply because it faces declining popularity in Scotland, as reflected in our having more Scottish Conservative MPs?
We all have met WASPI women in our constituencies, and I have spoken to women who have been affected. I am very much aware that these women have been working hard since they were 14 or 15 and have often borne the brunt of caring responsibilities. They have brought up families, and they definitely feel a sense of injustice.

Mike Amesbury: Surely this is about justice, about doing the right thing for WASPI women and about Conservatives joining Opposition Members on the issue. The 31 Conservatives who claim to be supporting the WASPI women—and rightfully so—should join us in the Lobby. Let us have some justice and some proper transitional arrangements.

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the basis of the claim in the motion is that nothing has been done, and that is simply not the case. This Government have already allocated more than £1 billion to help women. We have heard this morning from the First Secretary of State that the pension age will be equalised by next year. Although I accept that there are women who feel a sense of injustice, this motion is not the way to deal with it. Let us instead look at what the Government have done to improve the lives of older people up and down this country, including in Scotland.
The investment in the NHS has meant that we have seen people receiving better healthcare, enabling them to live fuller active lives, which means participating in the workforce for longer. I was surprised to hear that it might be an insult for a woman aged 65 to be offered an apprenticeship. I know women of 65 who find that a great opportunity—why write off women just because they are 65? The idea does not apply to all women—no one is saying it does—but research shows that when women take up such opportunities at the age of 65, they report increased satisfaction. We all know that participating in the workforce is one of the best ways to improve mental health and a whole range of other outcomes. I reject the suggestion that it is insulting. Government Members like to think about how we can create more opportunities for our people to participate and live fuller lives, at all stages of their lives. It is incumbent on Members from all parties to recognise that and support it.
We need to look into some of the statistics that Opposition Members have made claims about. Having read some briefings, I do not recognise some of the statistics on maladministration, an issue that the Minister addressed. We need to be honest about the communication programme and the fact that women have been able to plan for their retirement. The crux of my argument is that there is no suggestion that the SNP proposal is costed, and I dispute the figure put forward by its Members.

Ian Blackford: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Rachel Maclean: I am sorry but no, I will not. I need to finish.

Ian Blackford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is important. I pointed out earlier in the debate that the SNP published the Landman report last year and it was fully costed. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) has made an error by saying that our proposal has not been costed. It has been costed precisely and she should recognise that.

Rosie Winterton: That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate, and it has simply reduced the time available for other people to speak.

Rachel Maclean: Research has suggested that it might cost £36 billion to implement the proposals. When I speak to WASPI women in Redditch, how am I supposed to say to them, “Let’s not spend money helping your children and grandchildren”—

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Christine Jardine: It strikes me that some of us in this House might do well to remember that our retirement might be a decision made by the electorate, who have every right to know when they can retire. They would know, were it not for the way in which the House passed legislation in 1995 and 2011 that changed the state pension age for women born in the ’50s and then failed to communicate that effectively.
The changes to the state pension age affect women such as a constituent of mine who recently came to me to tell me that although she had planned for her retirement for almost 30 years, she now found herself having to do two part-time jobs just to remain solvent. This is a woman who had worked all her life, paid her national insurance and saved for her retirement, and she now works as a cleaner and, as a result, suffers from arthritis. Her life today is very different from the one she anticipated. That she finds herself in this situation is not her fault but is down to the Government’s mismanagement. She was offered voluntary redundancy a couple of years before her anticipated retirement age. She calculated that with two years to go she could use the redundancy money, as well as her savings, to see her through, but she then discovered that she actually had to wait for the best part of a decade to retire. She has now used up her redundancy money, her savings have been whittled away, and she has those two jobs.
My constituent is not alone. Some 6,000 women in my constituency alone have been affected, and almost 3 million women throughout the country have been drawn into this unjust pension trap. Our constituents, in some cases our friends and members of our families, have been pushed into hardship, even poverty, after a lifetime of work. What is most galling is that the women who come to me, like so many others, have no quibble with the need to equalise the pension age with that of men. As has been said already, the issue is how it has been done. A situation has been created in which women born in the 1950s who, for the most part, worked all  their adult lives, paid their national insurance and tax—paying for our education service and national health service—and planned for their retirement are now asked to wait.
During the general election campaign, an elderly person told me that they felt they were being punished by the Conservative Government for growing old. It is difficult not to agree with that today. One thing about this debate that has disappointed me has been the political point scoring between one side of the House and the other. Perhaps it is more important for all of us to rise above that and work to do something to reverse this monstrous injustice; otherwise, the electorate may well offer us all early retirement.

Grahame Morris: I congratulate the Scottish National party on selecting this topic for its Opposition day debate. It is one on which I and many other Members—too many to mention them all—have been working. However, I do wish to mention the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for the sterling work that he has done, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who have raised this issue time and again and have worked hard to encourage Members from all parts of the House to speak in the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that the motion has been carefully crafted to allow anyone to support it—both Government and Opposition Members—and I urge everyone to do so.
If the Government do not take this opportunity to resolve the issue, I remind them that we will have another big debate on this matter in the Chamber on Wednesday 14 December, and I encourage all Members to come along. I say to Ministers: please do not think that you will get off the hook. If this new Session of Parliament has taught us anything, it is that the Government have been prepared, on more than one occasion, to cover their eyes and ears to pretend that suffering is not happening—on universal credit, employment and support allowance, personal independence payments, food banks and now on WASPI. While I have the attention of Ministers for a very brief period, I therefore want to tell them some of the reasons why they should act.

Mike Hill: Does my hon. Friend and neighbour agree that 5,500 women in Hartlepool have been victimised by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the consequences have been devastating? They have been robbed of the happy retirement that they deserve and forced into food banks and the dysfunctional benefits system.

Grahame Morris: Absolutely. It is something that affects every Member. Often we bring up issues that affect only the north, only Scotland or only Wales. This time, people in every constituency are affected.

Jamie Stone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Grahame Morris: I really should not give way, because of the time. I do apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but you will admonish me if I give way, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I recently tabled early-day motion 63, which has been signed by 197 Members. A petition was signed by 107,000 people, which led to the granting of a debate. It will take place next week, if it is necessary—if the Minister does not concede the point tonight. May I remind him that the early-day motion has been signed by Members from every party, every nation and every region in the UK?
Every day, I receive completely heartbreaking letters and emails from women who are in dire financial hardship. Many of them have worked and paid national insurance contributions since they were 16. They now find that the deal that they signed with the Government in good faith has effectively been ripped up. We are talking about a contract and a moral obligation on Government. An unnecessary situation has been created, with a generation of women relying on food banks, selling their homes and being forced to rely on the benefits system. It is degrading, completely unfair and unnecessary.
The failings by consecutive Governments have forced these women, many of whom I have known for years because I live in the constituency that I represent, into poverty and forced them to rely on support from friends and relatives. I am totally convinced of the sincerity of their claim that they knew nothing about the increase in pension age because of the lack of notification. I therefore urge the Government immediately to acknowledge their error, provide all those affected with some level of compensation, and provide those worst affected—those who are waiting six years longer than they had planned before they receive their pension—with some support through a bridging pension. I thank the WASPI women for their support in raising this issue.

Sammy Wilson: Many of the WASPI women watching this debate may feel disappointed that instead of trying to build some consensus, we have had finger pointing, Pontius Pilate-style hand washing and rancour. It is important to note that this is not a party political issue for many women, and certainly not for those I have spoken to. It is a personal issue that has affected their day-to-day lives, so they want Parliament’s collective attention. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has been an exception today, as he was very honest in accepting that all Administrations have played a part in this situation.
We will support the motion for a number of reasons. The first is that it is quite clear—even from successive Governments’ own admissions and from the actions of the Department for Work and Pensions—that people were not given adequate notice of the change. The Pensions Commission said that there should be about 15 years’ advance warning for such changes, but some people had less than five.

Paul Masterton: There are 4,000 WASPI women in East Renfrewshire. None of those whom I have met have an issue with their state pension age going up; they simply feel that they were not given enough notice. Is there not a broader question about how the Government communicate with individuals who face serious consequences and life changes as a result of this policy? We need to look at the communication, not just at pensions.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Even DWP research found that, especially in the lower income groups, two thirds of women were not even aware of the changes. The very fact that the practice was changed to writing to people individually after 2011 indicates that the DWP recognised that newspaper adverts and leaflets were not sufficient.
The second reason why we support the motion is that these changes have hurt people in the lower income brackets. Look at the hardship that has been caused. Research shows that the impact on people with lower incomes is five times the impact on people with higher incomes. There is an issue not only of communication but of fairness, and that has to be dealt with. Poverty among 60 to 64-year-olds has already gone up by 6.2% as a result of the impact of the changes.
We support the motion even though it has been said that it is not specific. At this stage, it is probably right that it is not specific, because a range of remedies could be introduced to deal with the issue. I accept that not all those remedies will please people—for some, no remedies will. I want to be responsible, and I understand that we cannot simply rewrite pensions history and say, “Let’s undo all that has been done.” It is too costly. But there are a range of remedies, and the motion gives the Government the opportunity to come back with ideas within the financial restraints that they face at present. Those ideas can be knocked around and debated, and we can see what impact they would have and whether they target the people who are hit most badly. But at least let us have some recognition that there is a problem caused by bad communication, and that that problem hits certain groups of people, especially those on low incomes who are coming to the end of their working lives. Let us find a way to deal with it.

Patricia Gibson: I have no wish to be disrespectful to anybody in the House, but I have to say that some of the comments I have heard from the Government side of the Chamber have been unmitigated piles of mince.
The injustice that has been visited on women born in the 1950s is widely accepted by most people, except the Conservatives, who continue either to tell those women that they can seek apprenticeships—we heard that again today, justified by the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is not in the slightest bit embarrassed by her comments—or draw down their early bus passes. You could not make this up. Apparently, the message to WASPI women suffering hardship right now is, “Don’t worry about it. Do you know what? You’re going to live longer and you might even get a telegram from the Queen, so that’s alright.”

Jamie Stone: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Patricia Gibson: No, thank you.
The message is, “Don’t worry if you’re short of money now. Don’t worry if you can’t pay the rent. One day, if you hang on long enough, the Queen might send you a wee card.”
No one doubts that people are living longer. No one doubts that we need to have pension equalisation. That is not the issue at hand today; the issue at hand is the  poverty these women are living in because this Government did not give them sufficient notice to make alternative plans.

Jamie Stone: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Patricia Gibson: No, thank you.
That is what today’s debate is about, so Members should not come to the Chamber and talk about apprenticeships and about how we are all living longer. That is nothing to do with what this debate is about.
To add insult to injury, new freedom of information figures reveal that the DWP has received thousands of complaints relating to the WASPI campaign, yet only six investigations have been seen through to completion. Despite the so-called dedicated complaints team, thousands of women have been let down and robbed of a pension, with questions unanswered.
What about the Prime Minister’s vow to tackle “burning injustice”? I continue to wait for evidence of that. What about the Tory MPs from Scotland who pledged their support to the WASPI women but who will stand up today, give those women tea and sympathy and then go on to abstain in the vote? They are a disgrace. They should hang their heads in shame.
It is time that this burning injustice was addressed. It is time for the Government to stop giving these women a deaf ear. They should take off their brass neck and do the right thing. It is time to give WASPI women the justice they deserve.

Laura Pidcock: I thought I would never hear the likes of it, but I have: the idea that the solution is for people to draw down their bus pass; or that, somehow, it is not offensive—I am looking at the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean)—to offer a 65-year-old woman an apprenticeship. That is completely out of touch with this nation, and I am offended on behalf of these women.
I want to challenge the premise that everyone is living longer. Are the poorest in this nation living longer? I would also challenge the premise that, just because someone lives longer, they should work longer and not actually live longer after their working life.
Five thousand women in my constituency are affected by this pension age increase and by the woeful and inadequate notice they received of the changes. I met those women during the general election campaign, as other Members met women in their constituencies, and they made a massive impression on me.
There are now 190 Members in this House who said they would support the WASPI women. I hope that that was not just an election gimmick—I am looking at the Scottish Conservatives. Anybody who has supported these women needs to do that now. They have to keep their contract with those women in deeds and not just words. [Interruption.] I see that the Whip has just done the rounds of the Tories, but I hope that that was not to put pressure on them. They should come into the Lobby with us.
My own mam was born in 1953 and started work at the age of 13. She worked for 47 years and thought she would get her pension at the age of 61; actually, she will get it at the age of 65 and two months. To this day, she  still has not received any notification from the Department for Work and Pensions, as is the case for thousands of other women.
I can guarantee this: if these women owed the state any money—if there was any unpaid tax from these women or if there was any bill they had not paid—the Government would be on their backs. The Government would be tenacious in the recovery of that debt, and the communication would be thick and fast.
To witness the disappointment of these women is heartbreaking. Women who could not have worked any harder all their life are being made into dependents at an older age. How degrading is that? The exponential increase in ESA claimants is telling.

Jamie Stone: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Laura Pidcock: I am sorry, but there is not time.
In our universal credit debate, I heard the argument, which I reject, that the system of monthly payments teaches people lessons. But if we apply the premise from that debate—the one about expectations and notification—the Government have absolutely failed. For these women, who have not had adequate time to prepare, who have had inadequate correspondence from the DWP and who are at no fault at all, the right thing to do is to compensate them and to have a bridging pension.
The 1950s women will not give up. They will not go away and they will not forgive this Government if their demands are not met. They do not need apprenticeships or platitudes, but they need pension justice now. Let us have a vote and let us see whose side people are really on.

Hugh Gaffney: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
I only arrived in this House in June this year and on 21 November I led my first Westminster Hall debate, on the state pension age. I was grateful to the many Opposition Members who attended and spoke up for women in their area and across the country. I was even more grateful to the many WASPI women who turned up in Westminster Hall that day to hear the people who spoke. Sadly, no Government Back Bencher turned up to speak, apart from in interventions.
We cannot beat Father Time; even Big Ben suffers from old age. One day, it will be our turn to retire. As we look back, will we wonder, “If only I had listened. If only I had cared. If only I could turn back time”? If Members cannot listen to me, they should listen to the WASPI women. Members will all have had plenty of letters, emails and Twitter and Facebook messages from their constituents—their own voters; the people who sent them here to listen to and speak up for them.
I am committed to fighting for a better deal for the WASPI women not just in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, but across the whole of the UK. It is time to listen; it is time to care—the WASPI women’s time has come.

Mhairi Black: I honestly do not think that Scotland has ever been talked about as much in the Chamber as in this debate,  but it is worth reminding everybody that this is a UK-wide problem created by consecutive UK Governments.
I know that it is the job of the person winding up to sum up the debate, but I have been trying to figure out a way to do that without swearing. I will start with the Scottish Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) eloquently said that they have a brass neck. I am happy to supply the Brasso for that brass neck—honest to God, how shiny it is! The amount of rubbish spoken in the Chamber today by those Members is appalling.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) if he feels that any of my comments in a press release drew unjust criticism to him. However, my criticism is legitimate. He expresses annoyance at not being listened to, but this is the 12th time that we have had to debate this matter since I was elected. If any disrespect is being shown, it is by the Conservatives, who have refused to listen time and again.

Douglas Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She would have listened to my speech, in which I said that it was not just me who was criticising the attitude of the SNP, but WASPI women in Moray, who wrote to me to express concern about the attitude of SNP Members, who do not try to get support across the aisle, but simply uses the issue to score political points. That will not achieve the right result for the WASPI women.

Mhairi Black: Right, I will go over a few points again, just to get this across. In 1995, the then Government did not write to anybody to let them know that they would have extra years added on to their pension—[Interruption.] Hold on, I’m getting there. In 2011, this Government came along and said, “Right, see that timetable? We’re going to make it a lot quicker and much more intense.” Bear in mind that no letters were sent out until 14 years after the changes were implemented. Right? Let’s go with that. Conservative Governments—and, to be fair, consecutive Labour Governments—did not pick up on this, so here we are now.
Twelve times we have debated this issue since I was elected and on every single occasion, the Government have abstained. I would like the hon. Member for Moray to tell me what he thinks I should have done that I have not done yet. Can he?

Douglas Ross: If the hon. Lady wants me to tell her what she should do that she has not done yet, it is to answer my intervention from earlier.

Mhairi Black: Oh, the hon. Gentleman is a pleasure to talk to, but I will move on.
The motion was deliberately written to make sure that it was not party political—[Laughter.] I am loving the laughter from Conservatives Members. If they want to tell me what is funny, I would suggest an intervention.

Ross Thomson: I thank the hon. Lady very much for taking an intervention. She says the motion was written so that it was not party political. I am afraid that the diatribe we have heard from SNP Members has been nothing but narrow, party political point scoring that  has achieved nothing for WASPI and nothing for those affected, and is only in the interests of the SNP. The women affected deserve better.

Mhairi Black: The motion says:
“That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.”
What part of that can the hon. Gentleman not get on board with?

Stephen Kerr: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mhairi Black: No, I am moving on. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) to talk about the attitude of SNP Members considering some of the guff that has been coming from the Conservatives, especially in the last couple of weeks.
The point is that even when we come to the House with a non-political motion—[Interruption.] I suggest you listen as well. We have had more excuses and more of the same; everybody has covered that. Let us remember that these women are guilty of nothing other than when they were born. Only women are getting affected by this. We keep hearing about equalisation, but it is a strange definition of equality when only women get targeted and are told that they are going to be left destitute.
I am coming to the end of my remarks. We are told that these women can get apprenticeships. If anybody cannot see the problem with suggesting that 65-year-olds start a new career and a new pension pot, I am sorry, but I do not know who they are talking to. To be fair to the Minister, that is an opportunity, if people want it, but they should not be forced into it. A better idea is to try paying them their pension.

Stephen Kerr: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mhairi Black: No, I will not. Sit down!
In conclusion, I have to express some frustration at the Labour party. I am being very gentle on it, because I appreciate that we are all on board with this. My main difference with Labour Members is on the constitutional question, and that is fair enough. Three years ago we were told that we were better together, on the strong shoulders of the United Kingdom. We were told, “Vote no to save your pension.” It has been three years; if we are better together, prove it.

Caroline Dinenage: I start by thanking everyone who has contributed to today’s debate on this important issue. Members on both sides of the House have made passionate and heartfelt speeches and interventions.
A welfare and pensions system is successful only as long as it is sustainable, and as the population balance shifts from working-age pension contributors to those aged over 65, an increase in the state pension age is necessary for the welfare of all. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) pointed out, virtually every  party in the House has either taken the opportunity to raise it, or not taken the opportunity to do something about it.

Jamie Stone: To support my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), does the Minister agree that the failure to address the issue—for whatever reason, and by whatever party—reflects badly on this Parliament in general at a time when we could do with a much higher standing in public esteem?

Caroline Dinenage: We have taken forward transitional arrangements. It is insulting for Members from parties that have played their part in getting us to where we are today somehow to wash their hands of the matter. I will go on to make a few points, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Those who are able to work should support those who are not, confident in the expectation of similar support when they reach retirement. Today’s workers provide the support for today’s pensioners, and that is why it is so important that we have the right balance of the contributions that are paid in at present with the pensions that are being withdrawn, and that we adjust pension ages to maintain that balance. Women who retire today can still expect to receive the state pension for 24 and a half years, on average—almost three years longer than men.
As was outlined by the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), the Department for Work and Pensions has communicated the timetable for changes to the state pension age since they were first set in train 22 years ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) pointed out, in response to concerns raised during debates on the Pensions Act 2011 in both Houses, we introduced the £1.1 billion concession that has been mentioned, which staggered the changes and ensured that no one would wait more than 18 months for their pensions, compared with under the previous timetable.
Any further concession would cost significantly more. It would involve asking people of working age—more specifically, today’s younger people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned—to pay even more for it. Those outcomes simply cannot be justified.

Ian Blackford: Will the Minister give way?

Caroline Dinenage: I am not going to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. He made criticisms in relation to the Budget and the Chancellor, but he went on to speak for a considerable time today, taking more than 40 minutes for himself and depriving Back Benchers of the chance to have their say. I will make some progress—[Interruption.] I want to address some of the issues that have been raised by SNP Members, so if the right hon. Gentleman would like to listen, I will do so.
As has previously been stated—my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) pointed this out—if the Scottish National party disagrees with any of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, it has the power to do something about it in Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has mentioned on several occasions that the Scottish National party’s Westminster parliamentary group published a report by Landman  Economics, which modelled—[Interruption.] I thought he would be keen to listen to this. The report modelled the impact of a number of options for compensating women affected by the 2011 Act. Of these, the Scottish National party’s preferred option was to abandon that Act entirely, returning us to the timetable under the Pensions Act 1995.
The SNP-commissioned report put the cost of this option at £7.9 billion for the period between 2016-17 to 2020-21. As it stands, that is simply unaffordable, but it has the double misfortune of also being wrong. The Landman report significantly underestimates the full costs of returning to the 1995 Act’s timetable. The Government estimate that the cost over that period would be about £14 billion—nearly double—and that figure includes the impact of lost revenue from tax and national insurance, which the Landman report does not fully take into account.
What is worse is that the SNP’s position applies the costs only to the five-year window between 2016-17 and 2020-21. The costs beyond this horizon are simply not included in the option put forward. If the changes we are implementing did not happen, the actual costs to working-age people would be more than £30 billion over an extended period, which is equivalent to over £1,100 per household. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to justify that to his constituents.
The Scottish National party has also suggested using the national insurance fund to pay for the cost of scrapping the Pensions Act 2011. However, that is not the intended use of the fund, and it is worth reiterating that today’s national insurance contributions fund today’s pensions, with an excess of only two months’ outgoing payments at any given time.
The new state pension is actually much more generous for many women, who were historically worse off under the old system. By 2030, over 3 million women stand to gain an average of £550 extra per year as a result of these changes. The acceleration of the increase in the state pension age for both women and men is necessary to ensure the state pension system’s sustainability in the light of increasing life expectancy and more pressure on public resources. In fact, by 2035, there will be more than twice as many people aged 100 and over as there are now.
Failure to act in the light of such compelling evidence would be reckless. Given the increasing financial pressure that I have described, we cannot and should not unpick a policy that has been in place for 22 years. It is simply not affordable, especially when we take into account the fact that the average woman reaching state pension age will get a higher state pension income over her lifetime than an average woman reaching state pension age at any earlier point.
It is important to appreciate the modern lived experience of later life in the 21st century, which has altered significantly since the inception of the state pension in the 1940s. Longer life, better health and continued activity in later decades are reshaping the profile and participation of older people in our society. This includes sustaining work and other economic activity as those over 60 continue to learn, earn, contribute and participate.

Rachel Maclean: Contrary to the assertion by SNP Members that it is an insult to offer an apprenticeship, does my hon. Friend agree that saying that is actually an insult to women who would like to take up—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I am sorry, but I think the Minister had finished her speech.

Caroline Dinenage: In fact, I do not think that I had quite finished, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I do not think that anybody is suggesting that older women should be forced to take an apprenticeship. No one is even suggesting that they should be cajoled or encouraged to do so, but I find it insulting that SNP and Labour Members seem to be suggesting that women over the age of 60 should be put on the scrapheap and should not be allowed to do what they want. If they want to take an apprenticeship, they should be allowed to do so.

Patrick Grady: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
The House divided:
Ayes 288, Noes 0.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.

Ian Blackford: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have just had an impassioned debate, and a clear and decisive result. This House has determined that the Government should bring in mitigation for the WASPI women. I am seeking your guidance as to what we now need to do to empower the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the Chamber, recognise parliamentary democracy, and put in place the Government’s plans to respect the motion that the House has passed.

Rosie Winterton: I think that the most useful thing I can do is read out the written statement made by the Leader of the House on 26 October in which she updated the House on the Government’s approach to Opposition day debates. She said:
“Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate. This is to allow thoughtful consideration of the points that have been raised, facilitate collective discussion across Government, especially on cross-cutting issues, and to outline any actions that have been taken.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 12WS.]
I think that it is very clear what the Government will do. The right hon. Gentleman may well wish to question the Leader of the House further tomorrow, during the exchanges on the business statement, about when there might be a response from the Government.

Kevin Brennan: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the amount of time that Divisions on Opposition day motions take, would it be possible to issue Conservative Members with white flags to wave, rather than our having to put up with the inconvenience of a Division?

Rosie Winterton: Well, that is very ingenious but, as the Speaker has said before, it is up to each individual Member to decide which way to vote, or even whether to vote.

EU Nationals

Stephen Gethins: I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Home Secretary to introduce legislative proposals in this Session of Parliament, in line with the recommendation in paragraph 45 of the Second Report of the Exiting the European Union Committee of Session 2016-17, The Government's negotiating objectives: the rights of UK and EU citizens, HC 1071, that the Government should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.
It is the responsibility of each of us—every parliamentarian—to represent all citizens, regardless of who they voted for. We must also all be aware that our actions in this place have consequences, just as our lack of action has consequences. It is now 525 days— 75 weeks on Thursday—since the EU referendum, which delivered crushing uncertainty to our fellow citizens who happen to come from elsewhere in the European Union. We can change that: we can take away the uncertainty that has been so damaging for the past 75 weeks.
Our motion contains a direct quotation from a report from the cross-party Select Committee on Exiting the European Union in stating that we
“should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.”
That is something that this Government should have done months ago, but once again it is up to the Opposition to give them an opportunity to take away the uncertainty and to do the right thing by our fellow citizens. That should apply to EU citizens and to core family members.

Ian Murray: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman in advance on winning the vote at 7 pm, given that the Government appear to be absenting themselves from democracy in the Chamber. Does he agree that the uncertainty must be cleared up once and for all? Many organisations in my constituency, including the world-class Edinburgh University, require EU nationals in order to remain world-class, and that is why we need to clear this up as soon as possible.

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point. I shall say something about universities shortly. The excellence of Edinburgh University is, of course, dwarfed only by that of the University of St Andrews.
I hope that tonight the House will back the ability of EU citizens to remain, and that we will take away that uncertainty. Just as we should be delivering fairness for WASPI women, we should be delivering fairness for EU citizens.
Let us consider the contribution that EU nationals make. Our proposal would benefit not just those in our communities with EU passports, but our entire community. A lot of statistics are bandied about when it comes to our relationship with Europe, so let me give a few examples. There is the £40 billion just to leave the EU—just to keep us standing still—that we will not be able to spend on public services. There are the 80,000 jobs that the Fraser of Allander Institute reckons leaving will cost us in Scotland alone. There is also the £350 million a week that we were promised for the NHS, which we  are yet to see. That statistic came from senior Government members who are now in a position to deliver on the promise.

Jim Cunningham: I have two universities in my constituency, and they often rely on the expertise of EU nationals for some of their courses and technology. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is very important?

Stephen Gethins: I absolutely agree, and I will come on that shortly. In fact, it is important, not just for universities but across a range of industries.
To add to the statistics I have just given, I will give some statistics applicable to Scotland. Each EU citizen working in my country contributes £34,500 to GDP, which comes to about £4.5 billion overall. Each EU citizen working in Scotland contributes £10,500 in Government revenue—the taxes we spend on our public services. Frankly, EU citizens are better for the economy than Brexit.
The following is a critical point, which I hope the Minister will touch on when he sums up. Will the Government keep the promise made by Vote Leave—made by senior members of the Government—that
“there will be no change for EU citizens…resident in the UK”
and that they
“will be treated no less favourably than they are at present”?
Vote Leave did not tell us much, but it did make promises, and these promises were made by senior members of the Government, who have a responsibility to keep them.

Tom Brake: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an EU citizen who came here back in, let us say, 1968, and who had “ILR”—indefinite leave to remain—stamped in their passport but might since have lost their passport, will apparently be required to prove that they have not left the UK for two years since arriving in 1968?

Stephen Gethins: The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about that uncertainty. I have had such cases in my constituency. There are people who have lived here since the 1960s and 1970s and, as far as I am concerned, they have as much right to live here as I do, or as other Members do, but that right has been taken away from them. That is a disgrace to each and every one of us.

Karen Buck: rose—

Stephen Gethins: I want to make some progress.

Andrew Bowie: Scaremongering.

Stephen Gethins: There is one way to get rid of scaremongering: to vote with us tonight and give EU citizens certainty. This Parliament has the power to put an end to that uncertainty.
Let me talk about some of the key industries. On the NHS, the Conservatives should be ashamed. Anyone who has spent time in hospital recently or had relatives who have done so, will tell of the outstanding care from all staff in the NHS, including EU nationals. Very few of us will not have been treated by an EU national at some point. Yet the British Medical Association reports  that 45% of doctors are considering leaving and 19% have already made arrangements to do so. That is damaging for us all—each and every one of us.
Seasonal workers make an absolutely crucial contribution on our farms. Just a couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a farmer in my constituency who plants broccoli. He told me that it has to be harvested by hand, and that if the number of seasonal workers continues to go down, the harvest cannot be taken in. That uncertainty is being created for industries in my constituency and, I suspect, in rural constituencies across the UK.

Catherine West: There are not many rural elements to my constituency, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the same principle applies to construction, where we could also face a lack of skilled workers, holding up the building of more affordable homes, which are urgently needed, including in my constituency?

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the construction industry.
The University of St Andrews is a big employer in my constituency, with 22% of its academic staff and 31% of its research staff coming from other EU countries. That is absolutely critical.
I want to touch on the human angle now. It is all very well to talk about statistics and the big impact; that is something that we are all aware of. I have asked colleagues across the House about EU nationals in their constituencies, and I want to give hon. Members some examples. In Glasgow North, for example, Michèle Gordon, a Scot who is originally from Germany, runs the Language Hub, which helps young and old people to learn new language skills. In Rosyth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), Dace Stutane, a Scot who is originally from Latvia, volunteers in the community garden to cultivate vegetables to give to local children. In St Andrews, Silvia Paracchini, a Scot originally from Italy, works with a team of five other EU nationals on ground-breaking neurogenetics, including vital work on dyslexia. That work will benefit us all. Nanodent in Glenrothes and Edinburgh has Spanish and Greek dentists who are plugging a gap in that vital service. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) is married to a German Scot who has worked in the NHS in Scotland for 32 years. The former Member of the Scottish Parliament, Christian Allard, is a Scot who was originally from France. He set up a fishing business and is now in Aberdeen.

Jamie Stone: The hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the Scottish Parliament, will know that the final wood-finishing work in that building was done by craftsmen from eastern Europe. When I was in another place, in another incarnation, Bovis told me that that work could not have been carried out, but for those craftsmen, because we no longer have those skills in this country.

Stephen Gethins: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, drawing on his own experience in the Scottish Parliament. That Parliament reflects the modern Scotland, drawing as it does on so many people from across the EU.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Gethins: I want to take an intervention from the other side of the House now.

Stephen Kerr: Is the hon. Gentleman really insinuating that there is a threat in his mind—I believe that it exists only in his mind—that we are somehow going to remove these valuable members of our society from our nation? That is a preposterous suggestion. It is simply fear-mongering.

Stephen Gethins: This is outrageous. If this was scaremongering, the Government would be quite happy to remove the uncertainty from EU citizens, but they have not done so. And what about the 100 EU nationals who received Home Office letters telling them that there had been an unfortunate error? Those letters should have told them, “We are sorry. You are welcome to stay here.”

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Gethins: I want to finish making my points now.
The UK is at a crossroads in relation to the kind of country that we want to see. The first mark of that must be the way in which we treat our fellow citizens. Is the message that is coming out that they are bargaining chips? Or is the message that we should be welcoming them? This is a question of fairness, just as it is for the WASPI women. If the UK Government will not keep the promises that were made by Vote Leave and by senior members of this Administration who are in a position to do something about this, they should devolve this power to the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Administrations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Stephen Gethins: I want to finish now, and I am sorry that some Members have not been able to get in.
The day after the EU referendum, the First Minister of Scotland said:
“I want to take the opportunity this morning to speak directly to citizens of other EU countries living here in Scotland—you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.”
Today, we are asking Parliament to use the powers that we have and, as the Brexit Committee has requested, to remove the uncertainty for EU citizens. We can do this today, right now.

Brandon Lewis: It is good to have the chance to correct some of the inaccurate things that were stated just a few moments ago, and it was interesting to listen to the Scottish National party spokesman make a speech in which he simply decided not to recognise democracy. There was a referendum in this country, a decision was made and this Government will deliver what the people of the United Kingdom voted for, and we will deliver that in a way that gets a good deal for the United Kingdom.

Jo Stevens: Will the Minister give way?

Brandon Lewis: Not just yet; I want to make some progress.
We are listening to the SNP trying to play catch-up, and I will explain why they are yet again behind the curve on where we are. It is slightly odd and, I suspect, somewhat disconcerting for many people in Scotland today to listen to their representatives fail to represent the very people in Scotland who elected them, because there was not a single mention of any British citizen or Scottish individual who is living and working in the European Union. It is proper to ensure that we do right by them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I am going to make some progress before taking interventions.
More than 3 million EU citizens currently live in the UK, and the Government have been clear that we value their contribution to our national life, to our economy and to our rich and diverse society. We want them to stay, and there is agreement on that. We want them to stay and we want to deliver that for them.

Chris Stephens: I thank the Minister for giving way. On the contribution of EU nationals, does it not concern him that there is an 89% drop in nurses and midwives coming from Europe and that 11% of UK-born nurses have fallen off the register? If we cannot recruit nurses and midwives, what will that mean for this country’s health service?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have done his homework and will have taken the time to look at the work we are doing on what we do as we leave the EU. The independent experts at the Migration Advisory Committee are doing work to look at what we do post Brexit, but let me be clear that we are still in the EU and still have freedom of movement, which will continue until we leave the EU.

Edward Davey: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I will just finish answering the first intervention before taking any more.
At the last calculation, this country’s net migration figure was some 246,000, and roughly half of them were EU nationals, who continue to come to this country. People see the UK as a country to come to, and rightly so. We should continue to be a country that welcomes people and plays that role.

Andrew Slaughter: Will the Minister give way on that?

Brandon Lewis: I am going to make some progress, and I will then take some interventions. I am conscious of the limited time available for Back-Bench Members.
The future rights of EU citizens living here is an issue that has an impact on the lives of millions of hard-working people across the country, and it has been the Prime Minister’s first priority in the negotiations to ensure that they can carry on living their lives here as before. I therefore welcome the opportunity to outline that further today. The Government have been making  it clear at every opportunity that we want to offer EU citizens living in the UK certainty about their future status as early as possible. We have been clear that no EU citizen currently lawfully in the UK will have to leave when we exit the EU, and hon. Members can play their part by reassuring their constituents of that fact—I am sure that they would not want to mislead anyone any further.
In June, we published a fair and comprehensive offer in respect of the position of EU citizens and their family members in the UK, giving residents who were here before a specified date the opportunity to take UK settled status after completing their qualifying residence period and enabling them to carry on with their lives as before. Family dependants who join a qualifying EU citizen in the UK before the exit date will also be able to apply for UK settled status after five years’ continuous residence—irrespective of the specified date. We have committed to provide an application system that is streamlined and user-friendly. Our intention is to develop a system that draws on existing Government data, such as the employment records held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will for the majority verify their residence as a worker. Our priority is to minimise the burden of documentary evidence required to prove eligibility under the withdrawal agreement.

Wera Hobhouse: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that every day that passes means another day that EU citizens are living in limbo? I assure him that they are coming to my surgery in big numbers. Every day that passes is important, and the Government need to get on with setting out exactly what settled status means and to design a programme tomorrow.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady should look at what has already been said and at what we have outlined. She should read the Government’s offer, which clearly answers her very point. She has a part to play in reassuring her residents, rather than leaving them wondering about things on which they can have fixed answers.
We have already said that there will be a two-year period after exit for people to make an application, and our caseworkers will be exercising discretion in favour of the applicant, where appropriate, to avoid any unnecessary administrative burdens. For those who already hold an EU permanent residence document, there will be a very simple process to exchange it for a settled status document.

Andrew Slaughter: I can tell the Minister what EU citizens think of his proposals because one in six of my constituents is an EU citizen. They think the proposals are bureaucratic and expensive, and that they will deliver second-class citizen status. He should withdraw the proposals and give EU citizens equal status, as they have now. He should do it unilaterally and he should do it now.

Brandon Lewis: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to go back, check the details of what we have already outlined on how the process will work and update his residents. They do not have to have those concerns, because what he has just outlined is simply inaccurate.
We have also been very clear that we fully expect the EU and its member states to ensure that the rights of UK nationals living across the EU before the specified date are safeguarded in a reciprocal way. Despite not mentioning it so far this afternoon, I would like to think that Members on both sides of the House will want to do the right thing and ensure that British citizens have their rights protected, too. This issue must therefore be resolved as part of the negotiations on our exit from the EU to ensure the fair treatment of UK nationals living in other EU countries.

Ann Clwyd: We are not convinced of the Government’s integrity on this point. Earlier this year, I took a petition to the European Parliament arguing for equal rights for EU citizens living here and for British citizens living in the EU. The petition, which also asks for several other things, has gone through three committees of the European Parliament. I remind the Minister that, ultimately, the European Parliament has the power of veto over the negotiations, which he should bear in mind. Many Members of this House have signed these petitions, which are now going through the EU process.

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Lady makes an interesting contribution, and I therefore hope she will support us in ensuring that all EU citizens here in the UK are aware of exactly what the Government are doing to ensure that they have confidence in being able to stay here.
One million UK nationals have built their lives elsewhere in Europe, and we want to make sure that we get a fair deal both for EU citizens in the UK and for UK nationals in the EU. That is a sensible approach, and it is one we will continue to take in the coming weeks. As I have said, it is notable that we are the party making that point, which I have not heard from Opposition Members in debates on this issue.
We have had detailed and constructive negotiations with the EU on citizens’ rights and, as the Prime Minister outlined, we are within touching distance of an agreement. Around two thirds of the issues identified have now been resolved, and we have isolated the key remaining issues to agree. We will be working hard in the coming days and weeks to finalise this chapter of the withdrawal agreement and to deliver our shared objective of providing swift reassurance to EU citizens in the UK and to UK nationals in the EU. For the UK to take unilateral positions at this stage of the negotiations would not be appropriate or responsible.

Joanna Cherry: The Minister has sought to criticise my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) for not mentioning UK nationals living in Europe. I know the Minister has met British in Europe, which represents that group, but can he tell us why, if the Government care so much about UK nationals living in Europe, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has refused to meet British in Europe despite countless requests to do so?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. and learned Lady will appreciate that, as the Minister responsible for this portfolio, I have met and will continue to meet representatives from that group. The fact remains that there needs to be an  agreement between us and the EU, and that agreement must include protecting the status of UK nationals living, working and studying elsewhere in the EU.
The motion calls for the introduction of legislative proposals in this Session to unilaterally safeguard the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. I have just explained why we should not be taking unilateral action on this issue, as it would be wrong for British citizens. The motion is a little late, as the Government have already announced a new Bill to enshrine the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU in our domestic law.

Catherine West: What consideration has the Minister or his team given to the case of the3million campaign group, which is seeking to examine the fact that when EU nationals arrived under a different treaty they had nothing to do with the Home Office. One of the group’s fears is that the Home Office and its procedures may lead to a complicate procedure, whereas a light touch approach, perhaps from a local authority, may be more appropriate for those who arrived under free movement and with a different set of rights.

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. As she may appreciate, I have met the3million and my team continues to meet it, as it is one of the user groups involved in designing the system we will use. As I have said, this system will be streamlined and simple, and it will be designed through working with the very user groups that will be accessing it, to make sure we can grant settled status swiftly, efficiently and effectively.
The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will directly implement the contents of the withdrawal agreement, including the agreement on citizens’ rights, in UK law by primary legislation. As I say, this is why the SNP is somewhat behind the curve. This approach will allow Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process, and it will mean that the agreement on citizens’ rights will have direct enforcement and effect in UK law. Ahead of any primary legislation, we are planning to set up a voluntary application process in 2018, so that EU citizens and their family members who want to get their new UK immigration status at their earliest convenience will be able to do so efficiently, swiftly and effectively.
EU citizens worried about their status here have the Government’s complete assurance that we want them to stay, that we value their presence here, both in our communities and in our economy, and that they continue to be welcome here in the UK. Given that it is in the interests of all parties to protect the rights of their citizens once the UK exits the EU, we are confident that both EU citizens and UK nationals will be protected through a reciprocal arrangement. As I have said, we are now very close to reaching an agreement that will protect EU citizens and UK nationals alike, so any attempt to take unilateral positions would risk undermining our ability to secure protection for the rights of UK nationals living in the EU. When we reach this agreement with the EU, the Government will then enshrine it in primary legislation, providing certainty to the millions of EU citizens who have made the UK their home.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, let me say that there are still a lot of Members wishing to speak and so after the shadow Minister I am going to impose a time limit of three minutes.

Afzal Khan: The International Trade Secretary told the Tory party conference last year that the Government
“would like to be able to give a reassurance to EU nationals in the UK, but that depends on reciprocation by other countries”.
He said any other strategy
“would be to hand over one of our main cards in the negotiations and doesn’t necessarily make sense at this point”.
That is using the EU nationals here as bargaining chips—that is the Government’s approach. This could have all been resolved quickly if the Government had made a unilateral guarantee of rights, as Labour Members were pushing for, and it would certainly have been reciprocated by the EU. At the start of the negotiations, the EU tabled an offer that opened the doors to a reciprocal arrangement. Had the UK accepted it and worked with the EU on the details, we may have settled the issue by now. But the UK did not take that course and instead has created a climate of uncertainty and confusion. That uncertainty has already led to discrimination against EU citizens.

Suella Fernandes: rose—

Afzal Khan: I am going to make some progress, as we have limited time. Labour and the EU citizens’ rights group the3million found more than two dozen examples of job, housing and other adverts that illegally prevented applications from EU nationals. Those adverts have been reviewed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has written to a number of the advertisers. How can EU nationals who have been here for decades continue to feel welcome if we allow discrimination of that kind?
Even the Home Office is finding it hard to deal with the confusion. Over the summer, it sent hundreds of letters to EU nationals living in the UK, ordering them to leave the country or face deportation. The letters were intimidating and unsettling, especially given the fact that the recipients were in the UK perfectly legally. Instead of providing assurances from day one, the Government made their own offer on EU citizens’ rights. Their so-called settled status offer has been extensively criticised by the3million. The Government must urgently improve their offer and stop acting as if this settled status is a settled matter.
The problem with settled status is that the Government seem to think that assimilating EU nationals into our existing immigration system is sufficient. That was the vision set out in the leaked Home Office White Paper, but it is not sufficient. The Government will have to realise quickly that both our non-EEA and EEA immigration systems need a total overhaul. Moreover, although this debate focuses on EU nationals in the UK, let us not forget British citizens living in EU27 countries. Despite the pensioner stereotype, some 80% of them are working, often on a cross-border basis. What are the Government doing to secure their right to freedom of movement and the recognition of their professional qualifications? What assurances  can the Minister give today that those rights will be guaranteed before we proceed to phase 2 of the negotiations?
Another problem is the attitude of some Government Members, who seem to imply that EU nationals are lucky to be in this country, rather than acknowledging the value they bring and the contribution they make to our economy and communities, particularly our public services and not least the NHS. There are 58,000 EU nationals working in NHS hospitals and community health services in England alone.

Suella Fernandes: The Prime Minister has said clearly,
“we want you to stay”
and that we value their commitment. What part of that does the hon. Gentleman not understand?

Afzal Khan: It is clear that things are still confusing for everyone. What part of this does the hon. Lady not understand—that we need to give a simple offer so that we can move on?
In total, there are 2.4 million EU migrants working in the UK, and a far greater proportion of them are in work than of the population as whole. They make a huge contribution. What they desperately need now is certainty before the conclusion of phase 1 of the talks. This is what the hon. Lady needs to understand: we need certainty for EU citizens in the UK, for UK citizens in the EU and for the businesses and communities in which they have built their lives. The Government have provided none, as they are still busy negotiating with themselves.
It seems to be an alien concept to the Government, but citizens have rights. EU nationals came here in good faith when their rights were guaranteed under freedom of movement rules. Rather than guaranteeing those rights, the Government are offering them the opportunity to reapply for them, charging them for the privilege, and then pretending that nothing much has changed. That is transparently false. No wonder the EU negotiators seem to believe that the Government are incompetent. The Opposition value EU nationals; it is high time that the Government did, too, and followed up their warm words with action.

David Duguid: My constituency of Banff and Buchan voted to leave  the EU—

Drew Hendry: indicated dissent.

David Duguid: That is according to University of East Anglia analysis; look it up. The constituency voted to leave, but it was not because the local people are hostile to immigrants. Indeed, immigrants from inside and outside the European Union are welcome and valued contributors to our community. There is no doubt that EU citizens make a great contribution to the economy of Banff and Buchan. One of our key local industries, food manufacturing and processing, has the highest proportion of workers from the EU of any UK sector, with 33% of its labour consisting of EU nationals. Throughout the UK, the industry employs 120,000 people.
Although many EU nationals choose to make their permanent home in Banff and Buchan, many choose to stay for a time to work and then move on. That creates a constant demand for more workers, especially when factors such as poor infrastructure, particularly poor broadband infrastructure, sadly drive many local young people out of the area.
I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the House that one of the chief reasons why my constituents decided to vote leave was the impact of the EU common fisheries policy on our local fishing industry. Leaving the European Union and the common fisheries policy will mean leaving the single market and putting an end to the free movement of labour.

Peter Grant: rose—

David Duguid: I cannot give way, I am sorry.
The prospect of needing more immigration in the area because we have more fish than we can catch and process is a welcome one. However, it is clear that there is a real need to develop our local workforce in the long term. That includes not only our own home-grown workforce, but the EU citizens and their children who have made their home here. That can be done outside the EU, as taking back control over immigration does not mean an end to immigration, nor should it. Bearing in mind the great contribution of EU nationals, and as someone who has an international family of my own—my wife is from Azerbaijan—I am, like the Prime Minister and the UK Government, in favour of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens already living in the UK. It is right that we provide protection and reassurance to families and businesses as quickly as we can. However, that must work both ways, and what we are debating today is the idea of unilaterally granting rights without securing those same rights for British citizens abroad. I agree with SNP Members that Europeans who have made their home in Scotland are indeed very welcome, but the same must be true for Scots who have made their homes in Europe.
What we are doing in leaving the EU is not a game, and the question of rights after Brexit affects millions of people—not just EU citizens in the UK, but UK citizens in the EU. It is very disappointing to see the Scottish National party—a party that claims to stand up for Scotland—willing to put Scots living outside the UK last. Neither EU nor UK citizens should be used as bargaining chips—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Brendan O'Hara: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) that it is an absolute disgrace that, 18 months after the referendum, our highly valued EU nationals still do not know with any certainty what lies in store for them. Those well respected, hard-working, tax-paying members of our society have been treated appallingly by this Government who, despite numerous opportunities to do so, have ignored all opportunities to make a unilateral guarantee to our EU nationals that their current status will remain unaltered when the UK leaves the European Union. I repeat the appeal today: regardless of what others do, please will the Government  do the right thing and guarantee to those EU citizens, who are living, working and contributing economically and socially to the well-being of this country, that their status will not change with Brexit and that they are welcome here?
Like other Members who have spoken, my mailbox has been full with letters from worried people, and my surgeries have a steady stream of people looking for some certainty. Let me give the Minister one example—that of Katazyna Zalewska, a Polish EU citizen who has lived in my home town of Helensburgh for the past 12 years with her young son.
Katazyna is a highly qualified, respected and experienced multilingual social worker, working in the area of domestic violence reduction among communities in which English is not the first language. She recently applied for UK citizenship, so keen is she to stay in Scotland after Brexit. On 9 October, she received a letter from the Home Office informing her that her application had been refused on the minor technicality that she had not provided her blue residence card. UK Visas and Immigration could not be satisfied that she was a permanent resident on the date of her application for naturalisation. It said to her:
“The fact that that you have been refused is not because you do not qualify for Permanent Residence, it is because you have not provided a Permanent Residence Blue Card.”
That is patently absurd. Her blue card may have expired, it may have been lost, but she has provided references from her employers and a host of other documentary evidence. The irony is that, very shortly afterwards, we all received the updated Home Office guidelines on settled status which said that EU citizens
“will not have their applications refused on minor technicalities.”
I ask the Minister to look again at Katazyna’s case.
Looking at the wider picture, I have to ask why we are putting people through this emotional wringer. Why are we deliberately making it so difficult for people who simply want to get on with their lives?
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife that Scotland needs a bespoke immigration policy. If the Government here cannot provide what Scotland needs, then they must devolve immigration policy to the Scottish Government. We want a policy of thanking and appreciating those from abroad who have chosen to make their home in Scotland.

Matt Warman: It is with some sadness that I rise to speak in this debate, because my constituency has received proportionally more migrants from eastern Europe than anywhere else in the country. Of all places, Boston and Skegness knows the value that people from Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and elsewhere bring to our local economy. Today we have heard a great deal about surgeries being flooded with people worried about their livelihoods. If I may be blunt, surgeries may be flooded if Members scaremonger and tell people that they might not be welcome here. Being prepared to weaponise the lives and livelihoods of people who have come to this country in good faith, and who the Prime Minister has said are welcome to stay, is not good politics or good democracy. Frankly, it is shameful conduct over a genuinely important matter for constituents on the part of people with other political motives.
Government Members have a responsibility, which we are prepared to take up, to reassure people who are genuinely concerned about their future in this country. We have already heard from the Government Front Bench—from not only the Prime Minister but a number of members of the Government—a solid and sensible pitch that we want people to stay. People who have asked for EU nationals to leave do not represent the mainstream of Brexit voters, and they do not represent a large number of people. In my constituency, the only people who ask for “foreigners to go home”, as it is often put, are either those who seek to misrepresent the views of Brexit voters or those who have their own nakedly racist proposition. Neither position represents the views of the Conservative party. We in politics have a duty to reassure our constituents. I know that the small number of people—I mean less than 10—who have come to my surgery seeking reassurance have received just that. They have gone away knowing that this Government seek to provide them with what they need.
I will end by asking, what can Members of this House do? Well, we can do things such as invite the Polish ambassador to our constituency, as I have done. We can stand on a platform with him and say, “This Government welcome the contribution of EU nationals. We want you to stay, and we will deliver that deal as best we can.”

Deidre Brock: Do not the unintended consequences of the decision to leave the EU seem to be appearing thick and fast? The implications of restrictions on EU nationals seem to be among the most unexpected, for some folks at least.
There has been some talk of scaremongering today, so let us hear the case of my constituent, Francoise Milne. She is French and has lived in the UK—mainly in Scotland—for 24 years. She has been married to a Scot for those 24 years and they have three children together. She has been refused a residency card for not exercising her treaty rights. She maintained the family home and reared three children while her husband served in the Marines, including on tours of duty in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. He spent more than two decades in service and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He is a member of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, which is perhaps more commonly known as the Queen’s Bodyguard. The Home Office says that his wife cannot prove that she can support herself. Her husband’s income and her smaller income together provide the matrimonial home and family life. The love and support she has provided for her husband helped him in his service. The idea that she not been exercising her treaty rights is ludicrous. I have written to Ministers and await an answer, but hers is not the only case that I have been asked to help with.
Marco Truffelli moved from Italy to London as a young man nearly 30 years ago. He built a career in the tourism industry, including as chief executive of VisitScotland for five years. His international management company has prestigious clients and he brings wealth into the UK, but his application for citizenship was refused on the grounds that he could not prove that he  was resident in the UK. That was despite providing the receipts from HMRC that the Home Office asked for as proof of residence.
Mr Truffelli is married to a Scotswoman and has three children here. He never thought he would need to prove he had a right to live here. He applied for citizenship following the referendum. If Mr Truffelli does not match the profile of EU citizens this Government will accept, who can? I have also written to Ministers about Mr Truffelli’s case.
Those are just two examples. There are many people with different stories to tell, but a common thread among the constituents coming to see me—and, I imagine, a whole lot of other Members—is the fear that people have: fear that they will no longer be welcome in their home, and that a bureaucratic decision will see them sent away from their family or left without a secure right to stay here. I have constituents who are living in fear of the state. Members should consider that: a modern state—a supposed democracy—where people live in fear of its actions.
All these people, who are making our communities better places to live, are swinging in the wind because this Government are in thrall to a xenophobic wing of the Conservative party and a right-wing, anti-foreigner media. That is ironic for a party stuffed with people who are proud of their ancestry—the Angles, the Saxons and the Normans, that is.

Jo Churchill: And also the Dutch, in my case, but I will move swiftly on.
I welcome this debate and the chance to highlight the Government’s commitment to this issue. I welcome the Minister’s statement that we are close to an agreement, and I agree with him that the Prime Minister has worked hard to make sure we are in the right place on this issue. However, I mostly welcome the chance to thank people for the contribution they make when they come to this country and work. They work in industries of which we can be proud. They lead on science in our universities, and in our building industry and our NHS. Why on earth would we not want to encourage and promote their security? What we have been shown is the complete lack of understanding of what a negotiation is by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins).

Stephen Gethins: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Churchill: I have three minutes; the hon. Gentleman had considerably more.
One of the points the hon. Gentleman made was that the husband of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)—he is a German—has worked long and hard in the NHS. However, the hon. Gentleman showed no care for those British people who might be working abroad, and that is what the negotiation is about.
On the progress that has been made to date, of the 60 aspects we have been discussing, we are on target with 37. The UK has done more than the EU27 countries to bring the process to where it currently is, as is widely recognised. We have reached a crucial moment in the negotiations, and it is important that the processes the Minister spoke about are seamless and that they happen. HMRC will certainly have a part to play, although I  would like to understand a little more whether it is the right body to take things forward, because it is not always as fluid an operation as we would like.
There is still progress to be made on this deal—on citizens, the direction of talks, the structure of negotiations and the UK’s future more broadly. Jobs have a crucial part to play in that, and we do not want to destroy the brilliant economy we have, which encourages people into this country.
We need to look after not only the 3 million EU citizens we have, but the 1.2 million of our citizens abroad. That is what we will do, because it is right. It is clear that the negotiations are at a crucial stage, and we must ensure not only that we unstick them and get the best deal for everybody involved, but that we in this House do not behave impatiently with arrogance, or in a way that would critically endanger those people.

Drew Hendry: Living with uncertainty in our life brings a lot of stress, and we have seen a stunning lack of empathy, exemplified by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), about what people are going through.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) pointed out, we have all been helped by, treated by, served by and supported by EU nationals, and we all probably have good reasons to be grateful to them. To us in the highlands, they are our friends, our neighbours and our colleagues. They happen to come from other parts of Europe. This uncertainty visited upon them is no way to treat our friends, without whom businesses in the highlands face the danger of scaling down and even having difficulties functioning. From cradle to grave, they make a positive impact on Scotland, especially in the highlands, where population growth is essential.
Without inward migration, there will be more older people—incidentally, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is nothing wrong with older people; I have harboured a lifelong ambition to become one and I am making good progress—and a greater need for pensions and healthcare than can be met by their own contributions. We must not forget that older people did their bit when they were younger.
Free of Brexit, it was projected that 90% of Scotland’s population growth over the next 10 years would come from migration, especially in the highlands. It is a cold fact that without migrants, we have more deaths than births. Some 30% of the highlands and islands population live in very remote areas. We need people to help them. The fact that young people are leaving means that we need EU nationals and their families in the highlands.
EU nationals support our health service. Six per cent. of NHS clinicians in Scotland are EU citizens and the figure is higher in the rest of the UK. We have already estimated that we cannot recruit all the regulated staff—doctors and nurses—for hospitals and surgeries to fulfil our future need. As was pointed out earlier, the Royal College of Nursing has seen applications from EU nationals collapse by 96%. Coping with an ageing population is looking incredibly difficult. In the care sector, a survey of Camphill communities pointed out  that 170 out of their 251 staff working with people with learning difficulties were EU nationals, with only five UK citizens.
The same is true of the food and drink, tourism and construction industries. As we heard just this morning, an unprecedented alliance of seven of the construction industry’s major bodies has come together to talk about the industry facing a cliff edge over EU workers and an inability to deliver infrastructure. The National Federation of Builders and others have said that this is a disaster.
We need EU nationals across the UK, but especially in Scotland and absolutely desperately in the highlands.

Andrew Bowie: EU nationals living in the United Kingdom form an integral part of the economic, cultural and social fabric of this country. I should declare an interest, as I am married to one. My wife hails from Stockholm. Therefore, it is no surprise that I am very supportive of the principle that it should be business as usual for EU nationals, even if only to have a quiet home life. That is the right thing to do.
We have always been an open, attractive and welcoming country. As Ruth Davidson said at the Conservative party conference in 2016:
“for those who have already chosen to build a life, open a business, make a contribution, I say this is your home, and you are welcome here.”
I associate myself fully and unreservedly with those comments. The Conservative party has ever stood with those who, as John Major said, have the “guts and drive” to travel to another country thousands of miles away to work to better themselves and improve the lot of their families. After all, those are innately Conservative instincts.

Alan Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Bowie: I will not, given the time.
The Prime Minister has explicitly confirmed that the United Kingdom does not want anyone who is living legally in the UK to be asked to leave because of our exit from the European Union. It is every bit our desired outcome that it will be possible for EU citizens who are already here to be treated just the same as if they were British subjects. No EU national will be treated as a second-class citizen.
The SNP’s scaremongering on this issue is utterly shameful. Putting fear into the hearts of EU nationals by making false claims about their future in this country is an utter disgrace, and SNP Members should be ashamed. They know full well that negotiations on the bilateral agreement have been going on from the very start of the Brexit process. It was one of the first issues that our negotiators sought to resolve. The Government have made it explicit that they do not want to use EU citizens’ future rights as a bargaining chip, but they cannot risk allowing the future of UK citizens in the EU to become a bargaining chip either.
We are making progress. As recently as October, the Prime Minister wrote in an open letter that the UK Government and our partners in Brussels were “in touching distance” of a deal on citizens’ rights. Nothing  from any other European leader has contradicted that, and Michel Barnier has agreed that an agreement is close. The SNP wants somehow to unilaterally grant rights to one side, just at the point when we are so close to agreeing an arrangement that guarantees the rights of everyone. That is total madness.
EU nationals are welcome and will always be welcome in the United Kingdom, but I urge SNP Members to think very carefully about how seriously their motion would jeopardise the chances of their Scottish constituents enjoying similar rights in the rest of the European Union.

Martin Whitfield: I rise to represent East Lothian, an agricultural constituency that relies heavily on EU workers at certain times of the year. The constituency relies on EU workers for our care services, and it houses a great many EU citizens who work in the university sector, in our own Queen Margaret University.
We have historically had very close relationships with Europe, especially with Italy. I am thinking about the families, who still live in our community, who moved to my constituency in the 19th century from Barga, in Tuscany, when there was an economic problem. Sixty per cent. of the people who live in Barga, a town with 10,000 residents, can say that they have Scottish relatives, many of whom live in Musselburgh, Tranent, Port Seton and Cockenzie.
There is a lack of confidence among EU citizens about the Government’s intentions, and I hear a lot of cries across the Chamber. Perhaps it is for the Government to clarify their position more succinctly and definitely. I raise the example that I have set out because the connections that exist are deep. Is it too much to ask that our neighbours, friends and workers have their rights secured and understand what those rights will be?

Julian Knight: Britain is undoubtedly one of the most open, tolerant and welcoming countries on earth. EU citizens have benefited our economy and our society hugely over the last few years, and they have brought a great diversity to our towns, cities and rural communities. Despite the fall in value of the pound and the negative headlines that have appeared since almost the day after the Brexit vote, the net migration figure of close to a quarter of a million is testament to what a great country this still is, not just to visit, but in which to work and make one’s home. People really value that, as I hear from my constituents and EU nationals who come to talk to me about the matter.
That is probably why even before article 50 was triggered, the Prime Minister said that we wanted to deal with the rights of EU nationals at the very earliest opportunity. I remind the House that the EU stated that that would not be dealt with until after we had triggered article 50. The EU left people in a state of limbo during the months in which we waited to commence negotiations. I welcome the fact that we are “in touching distance” of reaching an agreement on the matter, but, as someone who supported remain in the referendum, I was deeply disappointed with the EU’s initial approach.
To do as the motion suggests now—when we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out a moment ago, within touching distance of reaching agreement in the negotiations—would be a gross error for the 1.2 million people from this country who are making their lives overseas. If anyone thinks that we can do that and everything will be all right, they need to think about some of the negotiating positions that the EU and its member states have taken.
Let me just talk about one EU member state, Spain. Right from the start, Spain linked this issue to sovereignty over Gibraltar. I remind the House that we have just witnessed an event in Catalonia that shows a great deal of bad grace and bad faith on Spain’s part. What are we supposed to do? On this point, are we supposed to hand over absolutely everything, effectively allowing the EU and its member states to take unilateral action or to threaten and say whatever they want? That would be a grave negotiating error.

Andrew Slaughter: We have heard a lot from Government Members about EU citizens being valued and welcome, but words are cheap in that regard. I go out and speak to EU citizens every weekend. More often than not, when I knock on doors I will meet an EU citizen, because they are fully integrated into the community and so they are often the partners, husbands, wives or flatmates of British citizens. I am talking not about what I say to them, but about what they say to me. They are genuinely distressed and upset, and they feel as though they are being treated as second-class citizens. That is not just because of the failure to grant or promise them rights, but because of what they are being offered.
The most recent document is the so-called technical note. That is a disingenuous phrase, because the document is a policy statement that gives EU citizens rights that are less than they would otherwise have. We do not know yet whether that will be the final version. The fact remains that there will have to be an application process, and there will be a fee. That applies even to those who have permanent residence already. There will be requirements on such citizens that are more onerous than the ones they currently have to meet. All of that sends out the signal that they will not have a status equal to what they have at the moment, but will have second-class status.
The Government should accept—I cannot better what the3million group has said in response to the technical note—that such people want the same rights as now, and they should be granted that without having to pay a fee and without having to go through a long and bureaucratic process. If the Government do not accept that, the signal they are sending out to EU nationals in this country is they are not as welcome as they should be.
People are already voting with their feet. They are not going to make decisions in a year’s time; they are making them now. These are often talented people who could work elsewhere, and if the Government wish them to leave the country and work elsewhere, they should at least be up front about that. They are suggesting, through the backdoor, that EU citizens currently resident  in this country are not going to have the same rights and will not be treated on the same basis, but will have to go through identity checks and residence checks in order to stay in this country. Why should they put up with such a change of attitude and such a change of status?
The Minister should be able to say in response to the motion, first, that there will a unilateral decision, and secondly, that that decision will be for a status that is exactly equal to what residents have now. If she cannot do that, all the words that Ministers have said will carry no weight, and we will see that they are placing less value on EU citizens than they have now.

Stephen Kerr: I am proud to live in a country where fundamental decency and neighbourliness lead us to welcome newcomers and embrace them as our own. There is something inspiring about our warm embrace of citizens from all over the world. It is often said that tolerance is one of the British virtues, but I believe it goes beyond that: it goes beyond tolerance to a warm acceptance and a sense of celebration about our diversity.
We should be gratified that so many people from around the world chose to make the United Kingdom their home, and they make a full contribution to the society they live in. They are an economic positive; indeed, an economic necessity—students, entrepreneurs, skilled workers and valued employees. Before my election to this place, I had the privilege to work alongside and lead teams of wonderful colleagues from across the EU—talented, motivated and inspiring people—who had chosen to come to the United Kingdom and build their future lives here. Every one of those wonderful people, my former colleagues, should, in common with all other EU nationals living and working in our country, be assured of their position in our society, which is as much theirs as it is mine.
That is why the priority, first and foremost, of Her Majesty’s Government in our negotiations with the EU was, from the very outset, to secure the status of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom and that of British nationals living in the EU. This debate is somewhat redundant because we have received assurances, as we did again from the Minister today, that we are “within touching distance” of an agreement to safeguard these rights.
SNP Members have brought forward this issue for debate—they do so with alarming frequency—because every time they do they try to tell people, despite a thousand assurances to the contrary, that their right to stay in this country is somehow at risk. No EU national currently living in the UK lawfully should have any fear, whatever the scaremongers on the SNP Benches may say, about having to leave the United Kingdom when our country leaves the EU.
SNP Members spread fear and panic because they think there is some party political advantage in doing so, but fear and panic are entirely unjustified. Their implication that Conservative Members are somehow plotting to ship back our friends, our neighbours, our work colleagues, our partners and our families to the country they came from is absurd, but it is an absurd narrative that they delight in because absurdity is their speciality.
Whatever spin SNP Members try to put on this situation, the fact is that the people of Britain—the family of nations and regions that make up our United Kingdom—voted to leave the European Union. EU nationals are welcome in this country, and will continue to be welcome here. Frankly, I do not think that the British people who have EU nationals as friends, family, neighbours, colleagues and partners would stand for any other policy, and it is disreputable of SNP Members to suggest that they would. I am happy that this House should take a lead from our neighbours and our friends, as well as from our EU nationals, who are under no threat whatsoever from this Government.

Edward Davey: I am prepared to accept the Government’s stated position that they will ensure that many EU citizens living here will stay after this negotiation. I am sure that that is the case. However, I hope that the Minister will have the frankness and honesty to accept the facts and figures that show that many EU nationals have already left since the referendum, which is damaging many aspects of our society and economy.

Brandon Lewis: That is wrong.

Edward Davey: It is not wrong. I have shown the figures to the Minister. I have talked to businesses and to the local hospital in Kingston, and they are all worried about recruitment and people having gone home.

Brandon Lewis: The simple fact is that net migration was 246,000 last year. The figures are up for EU nationals coming to this country.

Edward Davey: I am afraid that those figures show what has happened in the past. If the Minister talked to businesses and to people working in the health service, he would know that the position is changing significantly and quickly. He is in a completely ridiculous world if he thinks that that is not the case.
I want to challenge the Minister. If he is going to welcome EU nationals, he and his colleagues need to do various things. Italian and German nationals, and other friends and colleagues, have shown some of us job adverts saying that only British passport holders can apply. Will he ensure that the full weight of the law will go against those putting out those adverts, because they are illegal? We need to make sure that that discrimination, which is appearing in our society, is clamped down on. I hope he will give that reassurance from the Dispatch Box and tell us what measures he and his colleagues will take to prevent that discrimination, which is affecting EU nationals here and making them feel unwelcome.
Will the Minister say more—the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) talked about this—about whether the systems that will be put in place will be easy and welcoming, not difficult and expensive? I have a concrete case for him. An EU national with permanent residency in the UK applied and paid for it. The Government—wrongly, in my view—are asking them to apply again for settled status. Given that they have already paid for permanent residency, will the Minister commit from the Dispatch Box that they will not be charged for having to apply again for settled status?
If an EU national who has not been able to provide proof of residency is given temporary status for two years—a new Government proposal for which the EU national will have to pay—will they have to pay again when they apply for settled status after five years? I hope that the Minister will make it clear that they will not have to do so.
I hope that the Minister will also make it clear that the whole registration process will be simple. He said that in his speech, but will he take up the idea suggested by the3million group that, in order to register, people should just have to prove that they have lived here for the past five years and have proof of identity. That would make it simple, quick and unbureaucratic. I hope that he will commit to that from the Dispatch Box tonight.
I hope that the Minister will reassure people about how the negotiations on family reunion are going. This is one of the sticking points about which the3million group is most worried, because its members see the UK Government taking away rights that they thought they had in the past and preventing them from bringing their relatives here. The group has set out its views in detail. It believes that the UK’s settled status proposal is not fit for purpose and should be rejected. It has set out in detail why that is the case and has suggested an alternative. The group is worried about it because it does not trust the Home Office. Many of its members have worked with the Home Office in the past and they feel that it is slow and bureaucratic and that it makes mistakes and is unreliable. They do not want to have to go through that process in the same way as other people who have suffered in the past.

Colin Clark: The UK Government absolutely recognise the necessity to address uncertainties. To that effect, the Prime Minister has already committed to maintaining EU citizens’ rights. Many Government Members, including the Minister, have risen—I will not repeat everything they have said—to make that clear.
I declare an interest as a farmer and a food processor. I do not grow broccoli, but the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) has mentioned how important foreign and EU workers are in that regard. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly on this issue. Foreign and EU nationals are important to all hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). Foreign nationals are monumentally important to the oil industry in constituencies such as Gordon, Aberdeen North, Aberdeen South and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). The businesses I speak to are relatively positive, in contrast to what the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) described. Members of Parliament should do their utmost to reassure those constituents who are still anxious about their status that they are absolutely entitled to stay in this country.
With that in mind, we should now do everything in our power to ensure that what is enshrined in UK law regarding the rights of EU citizens living and working  in this country is also integrated into EU law with regard to the 1 million UK citizens living and working in other EU countries. Those UK nationals based abroad deserve just as much certainty as EU citizens residing here. I look forward to a reciprocal agreement as soon as possible.

Peter Grant: I am pleased to be able to sum up the debate. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not mention everyone’s contributions, but I do not think I have enough time even to read out the names of all their constituencies—it does give the lie to the myth that the SNP is never interested in talking about anything important, given that both our debates today have been so oversubscribed that they could easily have run for four or five hours each. Instead, I want to pick up on the main themes that have come out on both sides of the debate.
Let me draw the House’s attention to this document, “The Contribution of EEA Citizens to Scotland”, which was produced by the Scottish Government a few days ago. It is only 49 pages long, so it is an extremely brief summary of that contribution. The foreword states:
“The Scottish Government believes fundamentally that continuing free movement of people is in the best interests of Scotland and the UK as a whole.”
What a shame, and what a disgrace, that the United Kingdom Government refuse point black to accept that, because although we have been told that there was a referendum in this country on leaving the European Union, there has been no referendum on the free movement of people or on the single market, and in one country in this Union—this is also true of the local authority that includes Banff and Buchan—62% of people voted to remain.
Many specific cases have been raised by the Opposition, and no doubt we could have heard many more, had there been more time, and of course there are a great many more such individuals who, for various reasons, do not want to be identified. One Member asked in an intervention what part of the reassurances we do not understand, missing the point completely; it is the 3 million people outside this Chamber who also need to understand, and they are simply not reassured. We have heard Conservative Members say that the SNP is scaremongering. Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament are accusing Scottish National party Members of Parliament of scaremongering about the results and consequences of a referendum. You could not make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker—they could, and indeed they did.
Another major theme that we have heard from Conservative Members is that the Government genuinely care about the rights of EU nationals living in the United Kingdom. Why then did it take nine months after the referendum, and a full-scale Select Committee inquiry and report, before the Government realised that their system for allowing EU nationals to stay here permanently was utterly unfit for purpose and, in the view of those 1.5 million people, clearly designed to deter them from applying? Are those the actions of a Government who care as much—[Interruption.] It is not rubbish; it is in the Select Committee’s report. If I had time, I would offer to give way to anyone who could tell me that they had read the Select Committee’s report; clearly, Government Members have not.
We have heard it said that we cannot give unilateral guarantees because that would prejudice the position of the 3 million UK citizens living in the other EU countries. If they had bothered to read the report—certainly if the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who described the recommendation as “total madness”, had bothered to read it—they would have seen that the recommendation was unanimous and that the Committee, before the last general election, contained a majority of Conservative MPs. Madness! They might even have recognised the names of some of those responsible for that unanimous act of madness, because one is now the Environment Secretary and one is the Justice Secretary. If he wants to tell them they are mad, I think that he can say “bye bye” to his political career, almost before it has started.
British citizens living abroad want the House to agree the motion tonight, because they believe that it is in their best interest that the UK make the first move, but I will finish with one final point. When the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) used the phrase “bargaining chips”, which came from Ministers initially, not from us, there were howls of protest. What do we call it when Ministers say, “We cannot do A, although we’d like to, because if we do A, it makes it less likely that these people will do B, which we want them to do.”? That is called a negotiating tactic. And what do we call A and B in the standard parlance of negotiation? We call them “negotiating capital” or “bargaining chips”. They might not like it, but that is the language of their own International Trade Secretary.
If the Government refuse to accept the motion, or to act on it when it is passed, because they want to use the uncertainty they are creating in the minds of EU nationals here to try to get certainty in the minds of UK nationals living abroad, not only are they going against the unanimous views of a group that included a lot of their own MPs, including two Ministers, and not only are they undermining the wish of the 3 million people living on mainland Europe, but they are continuing to use all 4.5 million as bargaining chips. They do not like to hear that, but the only way they can stop the phrase being true is to stop treating them as bargaining chips and give the unilateral guarantees that the 1.5 million here and the 3 million over there so desperately want to hear.

Victoria Atkins: I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have participated in this debate on the very important issue of safeguarding the rights of EU citizens living here in the UK and those of UK citizens living in the EU after our withdrawal. I am glad that Parliament has had the chance to debate this issue again, and I hope we can reach some clarity at the end of it. I have heard many SNP Members describe the worries and concerns of their constituents and the alleged uncertainty people feel they are living under. May I please take this opportunity to clarify the situation? I hope then that SNP Members, who are clearly concerned about their constituents, will do the responsible thing and, the next time a constituent comes into one of their surgeries with these concerns, reiterate the Government’s position.
The Government’s position is as follows. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if SNP Members gave me a moment  to say this so that they—and their constituents, should they be watching—might understand the Government’s position. Those EU citizens and their family members who are worried about their status here have the Government’s complete assurance that we want them to stay and that they continue to be welcome in the United Kingdom. I ask that that position be clarified when constituents go to hon. Members’ surgeries, because I fear that that misunderstanding, which some of them are labouring under, might be contributing to their concerns.

Stephen Gethins: rose—

Victoria Atkins: I will take just one intervention, because I am conscious of time.

Stephen Gethins: I think the Minister needs to understand that those points were raised in response to letters that constituents had received from the Government.

Victoria Atkins: I know that individual cases were raised, and I hope very much that those letters are being chased up if no replies have as yet been received. I also hope that, now that Members have heard the assurances given from the Dispatch Box today, they will communicate those assurances to their constituents while they await responses from the Home Office.
I have another clarification for the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). The discrimination in job advertisements that he described is wrong, and I can reassure him that the Government will continue to crack down on any such discrimination.
We heard today from my hon. Friends the Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Solihull (Julian Knight), for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Gordon (Colin Clark), all of whom represented the views of their constituents, and some of whose constituencies voted to leave. However, I must make a special mention of my hon. Friend, and Lincolnshire neighbour, the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who has the honour of representing a constituency with one of the largest eastern European populations in the country. He set out very robustly the views of his constituents, not only those who are “yellowbellies” born and bred, but those who have had the good sense to move to his constituency from the European Union.
Since the result of the referendum last summer, the Government have made absolutely clear how important it is for us to secure the status of EU citizens here as soon as possible. As the Prime Minister said in her open letter to them, that is her first priority in the negotiations. The right to settled status will be defined in the withdrawal agreement, which will be implemented in United Kingdom legislation.
In respect of the negotiations, the Government wish to offer an assurance that we are close to reaching an agreement on citizens’ rights. There remain only a small number of outstanding issues to be agreed with our European partners. In the coming weeks, the focus will be on delivering an agreement that works for EU citizens living here and for UK nationals living in the EU. The fact remains, however, that there must be an agreement with the EU on this matter. We cannot just wish it away. Taking unilateral positions at this vital stage in the negotiations would risk the position of UK nationals  who have also chosen to build their lives with their families in other countries. It would not be responsible for the Government to ignore them and enter into the unilateral agreements that have been urged on us by the Scottish nationalists.
The Government wish to reassure EU citizens throughout the United Kingdom that we are confident of reaching a deal that will enable them to carry on with their lives as before. As the Prime Minister has made clear, no EU citizen living lawfully in the UK will be required to leave when the UK withdraws from the EU. We recognise and value the huge contribution that EU citizens make to our economy, our health service, our schools, our care sector and our communities. We will act fairly towards them, just as we expect other EU countries to act fairly towards UK nationals living there. Safeguarding the rights of citizens is a shared priority for both sides in these negotiations, and a reciprocal agreement that works for all our citizens is now within touching distance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Home Secretary to introduce legislative proposals in this Session of Parliament, in line with the recommendation in paragraph 45 of the Second Report of the Exiting the European Union Committee of Session 2016-17, The Government's negotiating objectives: the rights of UK and EU citizens, HC 1071, that the Government should now make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.

Stephen Gethins: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? This House has now agreed that there should be a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals. How can we instruct the Home Secretary, and when she will come before the House to deliver this?

Lindsay Hoyle: The instruction has been given earlier, but I will repeat it for the record, to make sure that we are all aware. The Leader of the House of Commons made it clear that
“the Government are determined to listen and take account of views from all sides of the House. Where there is opportunity for the Government to listen and better enable the effective work of Parliament, we will do so.
To that end, I am today updating the House on the Government’s approach to Opposition day debates. Where a motion tabled by an Opposition party has been approved by the House, the relevant Minister will respond to the resolution of the House by making a statement no more than 12 weeks after the debate. This is to allow thoughtful consideration of the points that have been raised, facilitate collective discussion across Government, especially on cross-cutting issues, and to outline any actions that have been taken.
This is in line with suggestions made by Members across the House and I hope colleagues will welcome the new initiative and the opportunity for accountability this provides.”—[Official Report, 26 October 2017; Vol. 630, c. 12WS.]

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given that sensible explanation from the Leader of the House, will that now be known as the “Leadsom principle”?

Lindsay Hoyle: I think the hon. Gentleman has just named it.

Universal Credit: Terminally Ill People

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Freer.)

Drew Hendry: I have raised many times in this place the subject of universal credit and the problems faced by my constituents and others across the nations of the UK. This debate is about UC and its effect on the terminally ill, and preparing for it has been one of the most humbling experiences of my parliamentary career so far. I pay special tribute to Marie Curie, the highland Macmillan-Citizens Advice partnership and the Motor Neurone Disease Association for their input, and especially to terminally ill claimants who have come forward with stories of the issues they face—stories of delays, difficulties, the deficits they face as disabled people, the complexities and frustrations that confront them, and the humiliations and indignities they have to suffer.
These are actually very simple things for the Government to fix, some of them at little or no cost to them. If the Chancellor is sincere in what he said in the Budget debate about wanting a civilised and tolerant place that cares for the vulnerable, he will take on board the representations I am making on behalf of those agencies and the terminally ill tonight.

Neil Gray: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and commend him on the work he has done over many years in highlighting the problems with UC. He mentioned the Chancellor’s Budget, which was an admission that UC was failing some of the people he mentions. Does he agree that the Chancellor and the Government now need to go further to address the real issues at the heart of UC, such as those he mentions tonight?

Drew Hendry: Absolutely. We have all accepted the principle of a simpler benefit and the move to a single payment, but that simplification does not work if it is not simple for the users and instead becomes complex and difficult, which is what has happened.
As my hon. Friend points out, I have been raising issues with UC since 2013 when I was leader of the Highland Council, where we took UC through the pilot and on to live service and finally full service roll-out. During that time we spotted and reported the problems thrown up by UC, but until very recent weeks none of them have been taken on board. As my hon. Friend notes, we have recently seen an admission, however grudging, from the Government that there are problems—that the current system is broken. The Minister has an opportunity tonight to fix some of the areas in which it is broken.
Prior to universal credit being introduced, personal independence payment had a specified line for those who were terminally ill to call. Claimants on PIP who were terminally ill had their payments processed quickly, payments could be made weekly and implicit consent was available, giving supporting organisations the authority to make claims on behalf of terminally ill claimants. Many terminally ill people simply do not want to be told that they are dying, and PIP allowed them some consideration and dignity.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me permission to intervene on him and for bringing this matter to the House for our consideration. Does he agree that, just as disability living allowance had special rules for the terminally ill, universal credit must have compassionate grounds so that it can be adapted to an individual’s circumstances? Each person has circumstances that are specific to themselves.

Drew Hendry: I think the hon. Gentleman for making that point, and I will underline it later in my speech.
I held a universal credit summit in my constituency, specifically to challenge the accusations of scaremongering that were coming from the Government Benches. I invited every Tory MP, along with Ministers and indeed the Prime Minister, to come to Inverness to hear testimony from agencies and claimants about the problems of universal credit. Had they attended, they would have heard from Elaine Donnelly, the caseworker at the highland Macmillan-Citizens Advice partnership. She has been dealing with the universal credit cases of cancer patients and the terminally ill. She describes herself as “battle-weary” and “numb” as a result of the number and type of claims that are coming forward and the fact that people are dying before their claims are processed. She told us about a claimant who was dying of cancer not knowing the outcome of her claim and being without any support for six weeks. I welcome the timely reduction of the waiting period to 5 weeks, by the way. It took her three months to get her payment, and when it came through it was wrong. A £500 deduction had been made for another benefit that had never been claimed or received.
Other claimants have included Lucy, a 22-year-old who had missed the deadline, which meant that her PIP and her mobility component were stopped. Her blue badge was lost and her mum’s carer’s allowance was taken away. It was hard work to sort that out. In another case, Jo-Ann’s dad was told in April 2016 that there was nothing more the doctors could do, and he was moved from DLA to PIP that summer. He received two points—eight points are needed for the standard rate and 12 for the enhanced rate. The rules on terminal illness suggested that if the probability was that dying could be expected within six months, the claimant could apply under the special rules. However, the prognosis was unknown. The doctors were saying that it could be a month or a year, and it was unclear whether those rules would be an option, as the doctors could not reasonably say whether death would be likely within six months. Let us just imagine that discussion.
Jo-Ann’s dad and the family had not come to terms with the prognosis, so they could not claim under the special rules. The process was incredibly difficult and caused a lot of stress. As the special rules option was not available, the application had to be followed in the usual way and PIP was not awarded. The mobility car was taken away, leaving Jo-Ann’s dad unable to attend medical appointments or get shopping, due to their rural location, which had no bus services.
Jo-Ann also sat in with her dad, John, at the face-to-face assessment. She described the experience as “awful”, saying:
“They pushed and pushed my dad until he gave them the answer they wanted.”
When he was asked if he could walk 50 yards, he said no, so he was then asked if he could do it even if it took a long time. When he again said no, he was asked if he could do it if there was an emergency and he absolutely had to walk 50 yards. At that point, he felt so pressurised that he said yes. The overview of the assessment then said that he could “reasonably” walk 50 yards. The assessment process is deeply humiliating and degrading, putting claimants in a position where they often feel bad about not being able to carry out certain tasks and even about asking for extra assistance in the form of benefits.
I hope that no one here or watching the debate ever faces a diagnosis of cancer, motor neurone diseased or any other terminal illness, yet that happens to people every day. It must be absolutely shattering not only for those who are diagnosed, but for their families. I imagine that the last thing on their minds would be going through the hoops to get the basic financial support that they need, yet that is what universal credit means in its current form.
I mentioned the Motor Neurone Disease Association, which states that MND is a devastating fatal disease that rapidly progresses through the brain and central nervous system, leaving people trapped in a failing body and unable to move, walk, talk, swallow or, eventually, breathe. It kills one third of people within the first year and more than half within two years. A small number survive longer. People with MND and other terminal illnesses and their families face significant financial burdens, with an estimated extra cost of £12,000 a year.
Universal credit needs to work smoothly for the terminally ill, but it does not, and there is nothing like it for causing stress. People do not need and should not suffer delays or stress, and a financial burden is the last thing that they should be asked to face. Universal credit should be easy, but not everyone can use the online portal. Many are simply unable to type. Completing an online application has been described by those who assist the terminally ill as
“extremely arduous and time consuming, often requiring outside help”,
yet help is available only over the telephone, which is clearly inappropriate for anyone who is unable to speak.
The severe disability premium has been abolished under universal credit, costing disabled adults with no carer £62.45 a week or £3,250 a year. The enhanced disability premium was also abolished, costing disabled adults under the pension age £15.90 a week. The Department for Work and Pensions’ stipulation that terminally ill claimants can apply only via special rules if death can be reasonably expected within six months does not work for many people with terminal illnesses. Health professionals are often confused by that condition and about whether they should sign the relevant form, which is known as a DS1500, meaning that people often do not get the swift support that they badly need. Whether people apply under the special rules or not, there is no customer journey specific to claimants with disabilities or vulnerabilities, especially the terminally ill. Those with severe and progressive conditions, including terminal illnesses, are all given work-focused interviews, which is clearly insensitive. As I mentioned earlier, some people do not want their doctor to tell them that they are dying, and it is cruel to ask them to self-certify their fate—cruel and unnecessary.
In conclusion, I have some simple low-cost or no-cost requests of the Minister that he can agree to given the relatively low number of terminally ill claimants: remove the waiting time, which should not be there, for terminally ill people; make the application simpler, which should be easy for this limited number of people; provide direct support or give implicit consent for agencies to apply on a claimant’s behalf; reinstate the severe disability allowance and the enhanced disability premium for terminally ill people; provide a specific journey and special rules for the terminally ill; allow the DS1500 to be submitted by third parties without explicit consent; and, easiest of all, get rid of the cruel requirement for self-certification.

Damian Hinds: I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on securing a debate on this important matter. These are, of course, extremely difficult situations, and we in turn must always be careful to treat them with the highest level of sensitivity.
I will begin by setting out the recently announced changes to universal credit, which of course apply to all recipients, before addressing the hon. Gentleman’s specific points. We continue to roll out universal credit gradually, constantly improving the way the system works as we do so. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the changes to universal credit that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in his statement to the House last Thursday.
New guidance will be issued to staff next month to ensure that claimants in the private rented sector who have their housing benefit paid directly to landlords are offered that option when they join universal credit. We will make two changes to advances from January. First, the maximum period over which an advance is recovered will increase from six months to 12 months, making it easier for claimants to manage their finances. That will apply regardless of the level of advance claimed. Secondly, we are increasing the amount of support that a claimant can receive through an advance from up to 50% of their estimated entitlement to up to 100%, Of course, the advance is interest-free.
If someone is in immediate need, we can fast-track the payment so that they receive it on the same day. In practice, new claimants in December can already receive an advance of up to 50% of their estimated overall entitlement, and may receive a second advance in the new year to take it up to 100%. Taken with the first scheduled payment, that means that claimants in need could receive nearly double the amount of cash that they would previously have received over that period.
In addition, from spring next year, we will make it possible to apply for an advance online, further increasing accessibility for those who need it. From February we will remove the seven-day waiting period, reducing the time claimants might wait to receive their first full payment. From April, for new claimants already receiving support towards their housing costs, we will provide an additional payment of two weeks’ housing benefit to  support them as they transition to universal credit, which will help to address the issue of rent arrears for those most in need.
It is important that I explain that the personal independence payment is a separate benefit to universal credit. It will continue to be paid weekly in advance to provide important financial support to help people to meet the additional costs of disability in the latter stages of their life. PIP is also not taken into account when assessing entitlement to universal credit. To be clear, PIP is not a benefit that is being replaced by universal credit. PIP and UC are not comparable, as they are not intended for the same thing.
Income-related employment and support allowance and the linked disability premiums, including the severe disability premium, are being replaced by universal credit as part of the process of simplifying benefits to help us address overlaps. To mirror the design of ESA, universal credit has two disability elements for adults. The higher rate is set at a substantially higher level than the equivalent support group level in ESA. By structuring the rates in that way, the Government are making it clear that they are not looking to make savings. Transitional protection will also be provided for those claimants who are transferred across to universal credit by the Department for Work and Pensions and who have not had a change of circumstances.
We will continue to listen to and act on feedback as we roll out universal credit. I regret to say that mistakes can be made in any benefits system and, when errors happen, I am sorry. Of course we recognise that people with health conditions or disabilities face extra challenges. People may be dealing with more than one condition or disability, and the same condition can affect people in different ways.

Drew Hendry: Will the Minister take on board some of the specific points that I raised? These things are easy to do and would cost nothing. Specifically, will he address the issues relating to self-certification? I also referred to other things that would be very easy to deliver, so will he consider any of those?

Damian Hinds: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. As we roll out universal credit, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that terminally ill patients are treated with the utmost sensitivity and care, and receive the support they need to make a UC claim.
It might be helpful if I briefly set out to the House how the claim process works in the pre-existing system—the legacy benefit system. Under that system, additional financial support can be obtained by someone who is terminally ill by making a claim to ESA. This is a manual process that requires an application to be completed via a telephone call or a paper-based form. As part of the process, the claimant is asked whether they would like to apply for ESA under “special rules”, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. For ESA, “special rules” means someone who has a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than six months. The claimant is asked to provide medical evidence from their GP or medical practitioner confirming this. If the claimant has already provided the medical evidence to another part of the DWP, the Department will confirm that and make a referral to an expedited work capability assessment. That is entirely  clerical; it is a review of papers. The healthcare professional will provide a report, usually within 48 hours, confirming the claimant’s prognosis and condition to the DWP, which will then be able to award immediate additional financial support by allocating the claimant to the support group. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the UC full service is designed to be accessed and claimed for online, although a claim can be made over the phone or via a home visit, which can be arranged if needed. Universal credit has a similar process in place to support claimants when they have been diagnosed as terminally ill to make sure that additional support is provided as quickly as possible.
I am are aware of the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman about the process of notifying the DWP about a claimant’s terminal illness. However, we do not need to change the consent rules in UC to support these claimants; we can already accept information directly from claimant representatives, such as claimant appointees and third-party organisations representing the claimant. However, we are also aware that there are instances when this is not happening as intended, and we are working very hard to make sure that the system works properly, with all the necessary guidance and procedures in place to support terminally ill claimants and to help our operational staff to assist them.
As part of the training that our staff receive, they are made aware that claimants might not know their prognosis or condition and that they therefore should not record or refer to the nature or detail of the illness on the full service journal or in discussions, unless requested by the claimant. Our approach is, and always has been, that we must ensure that terminally ill claimants are treated sensitively and with empathy at all times.
When a claim is made to UC where the claimant is terminally ill, we want to ensure that claimants receive any eligible additional financial support as quickly as possible. To make sure that that happens, the claimant is asked if they have a terminal illness. We have already asked that question of ESA claimants, but using the terminology of “special rules”. I must stress that, in effect, the two questions are the same. We changed the wording to make things clearer to the individual, and to make sure that people would be able to get the support to which they are entitled and which they need. That applies to new claims and to existing claims on a change of circumstances.
When somebody present with such an illness, they are given the option of continuing to provide further information themselves, or of receiving support from the DWP to do so. When they indicate that they would like support, it becomes a high-priority task for a  case manager to telephone the claimant to gather the information on their behalf. A home visit can also be arranged.
The most usual way for claimants to supply evidence of such an illness is by providing the DS1500 form to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is issued for the DWP by a GP or healthcare professional, either to the claimant or to their representative. We check our systems immediately and as a matter of course to see whether we already hold a DS1500 that was submitted as part of another claim. If one is already held, we reuse it for the universal credit claim. Receipt of that information indicates to us that the claimant must receive immediate access to DWP support, and that support immediately results in an additional £318.78 per month being included in their universal credit entitlement. The additional amount is payable from day one of their claim. In addition, the claimant is completely removed from any conditionality requirements.
The Department and the universal credit programme have regular meetings with key stakeholders, including Macmillan, Maggie’s centres and Mind, to understand how our policies are working, and to identify and discuss possible areas for improvement. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has encountered universal credit claimants who have had issues with the service in his constituency. As I acknowledged earlier, things can go wrong, and when they do, I am sorry for that. If cases involve vulnerable claimants, it is particularly important that they are escalated, investigated and resolved quickly. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has an effective direct relationship with the Scotland complaint resolution team, as well as with our local operations team, which has helped to manage a number of urgent cases to successful resolution.
As we continue to deliver the full universal credit service—it is now available in 178 jobcentres—with its expanded claimant base, we are continuing to review and further develop the customer journey for claimants with complex needs, including by looking into how we support terminally ill claimants to engage in the process. In that context, I welcome the hon. Gentleman raising these important issues on the Floor of the House. I do recognise that there are areas for improvement in the service, but he has seen for himself the drive, commitment and passion of so many of our staff, stakeholders and people working across universal credit to see this important reform through.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.